Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) exists to build a well-informed, broadly-based network of groups and individuals supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada created the term (MAiD) - medical assistance in dying, to make us feel better about killing, but the reality is that Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and expanded the law in 2021 by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ill to be killed.

In January EPC released the Life Worth Living film that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. This is a powerful award winning film. You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/

Canada is currently scheduled to extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone in March 2027.

On May 5, 2026, we spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that was examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone. The position of EPC is to demand that Canada fully review it's euthanasia law rather than further expand the law. On June 17, the parliamentary committee advised the federal government to not extend euthanasia to people with mental illness alone. We await the government's response.

EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby launched an emergency court case that would approve Brosseau for death by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving death for Brosseau as the Canadian government continues to debate this issue.

The cost of intervening in the Brosseau case is excessive. We need your financial support to cover the legal costs. (EPC Donation Link).

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

For more information you can read our newsletters (newsletters link) or you can read more of our blog articles (EPC Blog Link). The EPC blog has more than 6300 articles and has had more than 17 million pageviews.

EPC has many more activities. We need your support to continue our work. Donations can be made at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

Alicia Duncan's Book Launch in Abbotsford and Vancouver BC - August 20/21.

Join Alex Schadenberg and attend the book launch for the powerful - The Other Side of the Straightjacket, by Alicia Duncan.

EPC is promoting the Book Launch Celebrations on: August 20 in Abbotsford and August 21 in Vancouver.

August 20, 2026 - The book launch is at: The Reach Gallery Museum, 32388 Veterans Way, Abbotsford BC V2T 0B3 from 6:30 - 9:00 pm (Link to register).

August 21, 2026 - Author presentation and book signing is at Suite Genius, 225 W 8th Ave Vancouver BC V5Y 1N3 from 6:30 - 8:00 pm (Link to register).

 

Purchase the book from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for $25 (plus shipping) (Purchase Link).

In 2021, Alicia’s mother, Donna Duncan, died by Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a death that sparked national controversy and led to the first police investigation into a MAiD death in Canada. What began as a daughter’s search for answers became years of advocacy, legal action, and a mission to expose troubling gaps in the systems mean't to protect vulnerable people.

Donna’s story has been featured by major media outlets, including the BBC documentary Better Off Dead? and CBC’s The Fifth Estate. Alicia has since become a recognized voice in the national and international conversation around assisted dying, most recently providing testimony to Canada’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD).

More than anything, these events are about the story behind the book: why Alicia felt compelled to write it, what she learned in the process, and why these conversations matter now more than ever.

• Article: How the narrative control is narrowing Canada's MAiD debate (Read).
• Article: Alicia Duncan, History will remember the lives saved or lost (Read).

Event in Jordon Ontario - Exposing Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia in Canada (August 13)

Lessons on opposing MAiD in Canada

Rachel Parker Live and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are sponsoring an important event in Jordan Ontario

Date: Thursday, August 13 at 7 pm.

Location: The Jordan Hotel

(Purchase tickets) 

Use discount code: RP FOLLOWER 

An evening with: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, podcaster Rachel Parker and author / activist Jonathon Van Maren.

The evening provides excellent speakers and an incredible opportunity to focus-on and share what needs to be done to change Canada's future. 

(Purchase tickets) 

 

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.

Free online film screening of Prescription Poison on August 4.

Register for the free online screening of Prescription Poison: Averting Assisted Suicide in America 

(Today) August 4 at: 2 pm (Eastern Time) / 11 am (Pacific Time).

The Prescription Poison film is produced by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films.  

Topic: Prescription Poison

Tuesday Aug 4, 2026 2 PM Eastern Time/11 am Pacific Time.

Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link). 

Prescription Poison is 43 minutes long. The screening will be followed by a discussion.

Prescription Poison is ground-breaking documentary exposing the expansion of assisted suicide in America.

Prescription Poison seeks to awaken America to the growth of assisted suicide and is a warning to Americans that, unless stopped, the Canadian system of killing will become a reality in America.

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US (download) or $15 DVD at: Prescriptionpoison.com

Watch the Prescription Poison Trailer:

Topic: Prescription Poison - Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

Tuesday, Aug 4, 2026 2 pm Eastern Time/11 am Pacific Time.

Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link).

Federally funded podcast promotes euthanasia clinic.

Encouraging increased access to Euthanasia via alternative media.

Viviana Runstedler
Staff Writer, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Earlier this month, we reported about the podcast “Disrupting Death” which received $289,226 in Canadian government research grant funding to discuss Canadian experiences with Medical Assistance in Dying.

As per their website, their goal “is to provide insight and contribute to improving the implementation of accessible, person-centered MAiD for Canadians”. While the interviewees are not in all cases explicitly pro-euthanasia, the interviewers make it clear that they believe MAiD is healthcare and should be accessible to all Canadians.

The most recent episode, released on July 17, 2026, features the new Executive Director of MAiDHouse, Tamara MacIntyre. As we have previously reported, MAiDHouse is a euthanasia clinic which started in Toronto and has expanded to a location in Victoria, BC. They provide space for the purpose of euthanasia death as well as training and support to euthanasia providers. The interviewers refer to MAiDHouse as “an invaluable response and service” (episode time stamp 36:23). 

This episode was for all intents and purposes a promo for MAiDHouse; a one-sided conversation funded by our tax dollars via government research grant.

The following are key reflections from the episode. All time stamps noted are when the statement begins as streamed on the Spotify platform.

MacIntyre states:

“I had somebody who said to me that what they thought was going to be one of the darkest days of their life ended up being replaced with love and light, and that just removing the mystery changed her ability to be present with the experience. And I think that’s what people don’t understand is, that what people describe as the beauty of natural death, there is beauty in a MAiD death and your listeners would be familiar with that from so many subjective stories of how people have described it. And the opposition would position it as a facade that needed to be believed because it was otherwise.” (time stamp 12:30)

Here, MacIntyre paints that “opposition” (and we’re sure she would include us) as members of a ‘death illiterate’ society who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide because of inexperience with death or fear to discuss it. She brushes away individuals such as physicians and spiritual care providers who have accompanied many individuals in the dying process yet still oppose euthanasia, as well as those who have had a negative personal experience with euthanasia. She speaks as though all euthanasia deaths will be “love and light” and cites subjective stories, but ignores the subjective stories that exist in contradiction to that narrative.

MacIntyre further states:

“What I would say to you is that, specific to MAiD, there is bravery, there is curiosity, there is courage, there is human complexity that I think we often times don’t talk about.” (time stamp 15:30)

How logically backwards - to pair the oft-cited fear of being a burden as “bravery” and the choice to end one’s own life early as “curiosity” rather than the inquisitive desire to explore life’s potential, final natural moments.

However, MacIntyre also points out the weaknesses in our existing healthcare system that created the breeding grounds for our current MAiD landscape:

“People still think there’s a hospice bed for me when I need it or if I choose MAiD, there’ll just be a hospital bed for me. You know, they don’t realize that the way our healthcare system is built, that means they’d have to be checked in as a day patient and they would sit until there is space.” (time stamp 18:56)

It is well known that there is a severe lack of hospice and palliative, which has a negative impact on the trust Canadians have that their natural deaths will be properly managed. This along with ‘hallway healthcare’ was part of the conversation that led to legalization of euthanasia - decreasing the burden on an over-taxed system. MAiDHouse claims to be helping to solve the problem of space for dying patients but we suggest - are they just diverting funds towards themselves that should be invested into the expansion of hospice and palliative care?

MAiDHouse also positions themselves as a place for the vulnerable - those who don’t have a family or personal network to help them navigate the end of life process. MacIntyre talks about walking through the full range of end-of-life planning decisions from cremation to urn selection and more. This existential loneliness is a separate issue existing in society that is not going to be solved by euthanasia and instead we suggest MAiDHouse’s ‘support’ exasperates the issue. We MUST ensure people aren’t "choosing" euthanasia simply because they are alone or need help with end of life planning. This is clearly a way to prey on the vulnerable.

Finally, there was a discussion of transfers for the purpose of obtaining MAiD. This usually refers to being moved from a facility that does not provide MAiD to one that does. However, the conversation moved ahead in a surprisingly dark way:

“The complexity of deciding on time that they will be transported because they want the least amount of individuals to know. People who leave homes that they’ve lived in for a long time, that they know that they’ve not told any of their neighbours, they’ve not told anybody. They just need to disappear because they don’t want to be the rumour in their home environment.” (time stamp 27:23)

MacIntyre further states that planning “with those additional complexities in mind” is “work that we do on a regular basis.” (time stamp 28:17) This is heartbreaking. Is that really what Canadians are hoping for in their final days? Stigma. Fading away without a trace. Disappearing.

There is a human desire to be remembered after we are gone. The purpose of cultural norms around death such as visitations, funerals, and gravesites are to revisit and honour the life that was lived, yet MAiDHouse is facilitating the deaths shrouded in shame and emotional conflict. This is in stark contrast to final days honoured with visits from friends and family, recognizing that the moments are becoming ever fewer and to be savoured.

When asked for final thoughts on how she would like the conversation surrounding MAiD to be, MacIntyre instead took the opportunity to frame providers such as MAiDHouse and those who have chosen MAiD as the victims:

“I would just say the biggest piece I would ask is the level of compassion that it is not possible for you to know or understand what somebody’s circumstance is. And while you may find security in values that give you permission to judge another’s choice, just like somebody didn’t tell me what to wear when I got up this morning, somebody’s not going to tell me what my end of life looks like.” (time stamp 39:35)

As though fashion and end of life choices carry a similar ethical and moral weight. Yet the interviewer thought that was “a fabulous way to conclude our conversation” (time stamp 40:02) and thanked MAiDHouse for being part of the MAiD care landscape in Canada.

This is what the Canadian government is funding. Our tax dollars fund the killing of Canadians by doctors, and our research tax dollars fund these heavily biased conversations pushing for expansion of access to euthanasia.

We urge you to not become lethargic on this topic just because it is currently legal. Conversations such as those in this podcast will only gain more traction unless we do something about it. Speak to your members of parliament about these ongoing discrepancies and biases. Sign our petitions. Speak candidly to your friends and family who may be considering euthanasia. Direct those in your circles who may be less informed about end of life issues to reliable sites such as our website or our EPC blog. It is never too late to facilitate change for the better.

EPC intervention in euthanasia for mental illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs your financial support (Read).

The legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), Hugh Scher, was in a Toronto court on July 21 / 22, 2026 representing EPC in the case concerning Claire Brosseau and Dying with Dignity. 

The Brosseau case is asking the court to legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

Scher reported that:

Leave to intervene was granted to EPC by order of the court. We prepared a 10 page written legal argument, reviewed the file documents and prepared for oral arguments for July 21 / 22.

The judge hearing the motion was Justice Carissima Mathen. Curiously, she used to be head of litigation for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Her background is in constitutional litigation particularly with respect to women's rights.

... At the hearing, she seemed much more interested in taking charge of the application than limiting the scope of her review to the motion for a stay which was the matter properly before her.

Hugh Scher

Scher summarized the EPC position before the court:

In our oral submissions, we focussed on the core requirement of irremediability which was a core principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision as a criteria to access an assisted death. ...We relied on the significant evidence that suggests that it is impossible to determine if a person with a mental illness only is irremediable.

It is also hard to determine prognosis given the significant changes that occur with mental illness that are often quite fluid. EPC urged the court against finding on the minimal record before it that a stay is appropriate.

We also suggested that the intention of this application was to avoid the change in direction of Parliament, effectively pitting the court against Parliament. ...Parliament has recently, through its parliamentary committee (AMAD) on euthanasia report indicated a desire to be cautious and to defer any further action on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Scher completed his report by stating:

It remains to be determined what the court will do, particularly given the background of the judge and her possible desire to establish some kind of precendent. That said, the law is currently against granting a stay to grant Brosseau death based on mental illness alone.

EPC has intervened in this case in an attempt to prevent the court from expanding euthanasia by legislating from the bench to allow euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Previous articles about the Brosseau case:

• (EPC) filed to intervene in Euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read). 
• Canadian actress seeking euthanasia for mental illness (Read)

Prescription Poison film: Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

The Prescription Poison film (43 minutes) was released on July 20, 2026. 

The Prescription Poison film is produced by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films. 

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US or purchase the DVD for $15 US at: https://prescriptionpoison.com

Prescription Poison is a ground-breaking documentary exposing the expansion of assisted suicide in America.

The film will awaken America to the growth of assisted suicide and is a warning to Americans that, unless stopped, the Canadian system of killing will become a reality in America. Watch the Prescription Poison film trailer.

Groups can organize screenings of the Prescription Poison film at no cost. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition asks that you make a donation when showing the film to a group.

You may also want a speaker, such as Alex Schadenberg, to lead a discussion session after the screening. 

For screening plans contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca

 

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US at:  https://prescriptionpoison.com

The film features: Denise Leipold, Margaret Marsilla, Victor Nieves, Professor William Peace (RIP), Ales Primc, Alexander Raikin, Jessica Rodgers, Alex Schadenberg, Wesley J Smith, Dr Sarah Smith, Nir Solomon, Dr William Toffler.

Canada had approximately 17,700 euthanasia deaths in 2025.

Canada has had more than 103,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We predict that Canada had 17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 representing about 5.6% of all deaths and a 7.3% increase from 2024. 

We are researching the 2025 Canadian euthanasia data since Health Canada is slow to release data and Canadians have the right to know.

Health Canada's Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying was released on November 28, 2025 (2024 data). The 2024 data indicated that there were 16,499 reported (MAiD) Canadian euthanasia deaths representing 5.1% of all deaths which was up by 6.9% from 15,427 in 2023. 

We published an article on March 17, 2025 with preliminary predictions for 2025 and predicted that Canada would surpass 100,000 reported euthanasia deaths in April 2026.

Where do I get my data?  

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario 2025 (MAiD) euthanasia data indicates that there were 5303 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up by almost 7.3% from 4,944 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024. Ontario represents 38.9% of Canada's population. 

The British Columbia (BC) Health Authority released its 2025 euthanasia data indicating that there were 3189 reported euthanasia deaths in BC in 2025 which was up by 6.3% from 3000 in 2024.

Based on the reported 43,223 total BC deaths in 2025, euthanasia represents almost 7.4% of all deaths. BC has 13.5% of Canada's population.

Alberta Health Services also released its 2025 (MAiD) euthanasia data indicating that there were 1,242 reported euthanasia deaths in Alberta in 2025 which was up by more than 11% from 1,117 in 2024. Alberta represents 12.7% of Canada's population.

Nova Scotia Health released its 2025 MAiD euthanasia data indicating that there were 462 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up by 5% from 440 in 2024. Nova Scotia represents 2.6% of Canada's population.

Based on the official euthanasia data from Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia, in those provinces, there were 10,196 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up from 9501 in 2024 representing a 7.3% increase. These provinces represent about 67.7% of Canada's population.

How many people have died by euthanasia in Canada? 

According to the Sixth Annual Report, from legalization until December 31, 2024 there were 76,475 reported euthanasia deaths in Canada. When adding approximately 17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 we can estimate that from legalization until December 31, 2025 there were approximately 94,175 reported euthanasia deaths.

Is the number of euthanasia deaths increasing, decreasing or stable in 2026?

The official Chief Coroner of Ontario data indicates that there were 1,283 reported euthanasia deaths in the first quarter of 2026 which is up by 2.5% from 1,252 in the first quarter of 2025. This is not conclusive information but it does suggest that the number of euthanasia deaths has continued to increase by approximately 2.5% in 2026.

Based on this data, we estimate that there have been approximately 1,500 reported Canadian euthanasia deaths every month in 2026 and as of June 30, 2026, that there have been approximately 103,175 Canadian reported euthanasia deaths since legalization. 

More articles on Canada's euthanasia deaths.

• Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization (Read). 
• Canada: Euthanasia continued to rise in 2025 (Read).
• Canada will soon surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths (Read). 
• Canada reports a record number of deaths in 2024 (Read). 
• Health Canada 2024 report states that 16,499 people died by euthanasia (Read)

Canadian government gives $289,226 to euthanasia podcast.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has produced many excellent youtube video's that are available online.

Kathy Kortes-Miller

Thanks to researcher Patricia Maloney, who is an expert at filing government freedom of information (FOI) requests we have learned that Dr. Kathy M. Kortes-Miller, School of Social Work, at Lakehead University received $289,226 from the Canadian government for a series of podcasts titled: Disrupting Death; An examination of Canadian Experiences with Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).

Maloney wrote:

I listened to five episodes. It is a pro-euthanasia podcast, as one would expect. (Maybe other episodes will be more neutral and or against MAID but somehow I doubt it.)

$289,226 is not the only money given by the federal government to promote euthanasia.

Kortes-Miller has featured people who oppose euthanasia in her series.

In May 2023, Patricia Maloney uncovered that CAMAP, received $3,287,996 in funding from the Canadian government in 2021.

CAMAP is the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers which is the group that provides training and advocacy for doctors and nurse practitioners who are assessing and providing MAiD (euthanasia).

In September 2025, Kelsi Sheren pointed out that Health Canada was funding CAMAP's new Canadian Journal of MAiD, in their attempt to further normalize killing.

Kortes-Miller's podcast series was featured in the second issue of the Canadian Journal of MAiD.

The Canadian Journal of MAiD planning committee (Link).

Patricia Maloney will continue by researching:

1. What other grants that promote and celebrate MAID are likewise hidden in the Open Government database?
2. What are the chances that the government would also fund an anti-MAID podcast?

Thank you Patricia for you continual research. 

France's Senate may decide not to debate euthanasia bill.

France's Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232. 

 

In the article I explained that France's National Assembly has twice passed similar euthanasia bills and each time France's Senate defeated the bills. 

Even if France's Senate defeats the euthanasia bill again, the National Assembly can over-ride the vote and legalize euthanasia.

On May 11, 2026, France's Senate defeated the euthanasia bill by a vote of 151 to 118 and then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the section of the bill that improves access to palliative care.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

France's Senate Social Affairs Committee has proposed to not debate the euthanasia bill. There is logic to this proposal based on the fact that the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate, nonetheless, the Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

From France's Senate Social Affairs Committee - Based on the different perspectives between France's National Assembly the Senate - Ms. BONFANTI-DOSSAT and Mr. MILON proposed on June 30 (google translated):

Pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure, the Senate decides that there is no need to continue the deliberation on the bill, adopted by the National Assembly on second reading, relating to the right to assisted dying (No. 814, 2025-2026).

The Senate proposal continues (google translated):

Noting the political impasse resulting from the Senate's rejection, on two occasions, of the bill relating to the right to assisted dying and the failure of the joint committee, this motion aims to oppose the preliminary question to the bill adopted by the National Assembly on second reading no. 814 (2025-2026).

The parliamentary back-and-forth revealed the extent of the divisions caused by the introduction of a form of assisted dying, both within each chamber and between the chambers.

The commission and the National Assembly have, in fact, defended diametrically opposed conceptions of end-of-life care.

Far from making assisted dying an exceptional measure, the National Assembly has stubbornly defended a particularly broad interpretation, establishing assisted suicide and euthanasia as widely accessible rights, based on criteria whose scope and imprecision pave the way for a certain expansion of the system. The beginnings of this dynamic have already been observed during parliamentary debates: the National Assembly came very close to authorizing recourse to euthanasia even in the absence of any incapacity on the part of the individual to self-administer the substance.

The Senate proposal outlined the attempt to find a compromise and reiterates how the bill passed in the National Assembly is wide in scope and lacks definition. The Senate proposal continued:

The Senate's rejection of the text on two occasions prevented the debate, which the commission nevertheless deemed necessary to initiate with the National Assembly, from flourishing, in order to restrict the scope of eligibility of persons and secure procedural guarantees.

In this context, it is clear that the National Assembly has paid little attention to the work of the commission.

The eligibility criteria remained unchanged. The repeated refusal to regulate the life expectancy of eligible individuals, which alone could have guaranteed that assisted dying would be reserved for genuine end-of-life situations, demonstrates the National Assembly's desire to make this text a law for those who want to die, and not a law for those who are going to die, contrary to the position defended by the committee.

The National Assembly also remained deaf to the committee's concerns regarding the strengthening of procedural safeguards. For example, assessing the free and informed nature of a patient's wishes, which cannot be duly verified by a single physician after a single consultation, would have required systematic psychiatric evaluation. The text submitted to the Senate does not provide for this.

While some specific initiatives from the commission were adopted—regarding the involvement of relatives, securing the system for protected adults, and regulating the locations where lethal substances are administered—the National Assembly remained unmoved by the most fundamental concerns, which the rapporteurs had nevertheless shared during the joint committee meeting. Neither strengthening the collegial nature of the decision-making process, nor the mandatory participation of a mental health professional within the panel, nor even the establishment of genuine mechanisms for ex-ante or in-depth oversight were adopted.

Therefore, the text submitted to the Senate would lead to France having one of the most permissive procedures in the world and, in any case, insufficiently rigorous to guarantee a robust assessment of eligibility criteria.

The rapporteurs can only note the irreconcilable divisions between the committee's vision and that defended by the National Assembly, which render any attempt at reaching a compromise futile at this stage of the procedure. The tabling of this preliminary motion reflects their refusal to endorse the illusion of a parliamentary dialogue whose outcome would be certain if the text were to be put to a final reading in the National Assembly.

It is now up to the Government to fully grasp the extent of this political impasse. While all attempts at reconciliation have failed, the executive branch cannot ignore the clear lack of parliamentary consensus surrounding this reform. This law is not like any other: because it involves some of the most fundamental anthropological, ethical, and societal choices, it cannot thrive in dissension and antagonism.

Faced with a similar situation, the United Kingdom chose to suspend the debate on introducing assisted dying. Wisdom would therefore dictate that the Government follow this example and end this fruitless back-and-forth, rather than using the constitutional means at its disposal to force through such a reform.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee points out that this bill is like no other, thus using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

Sebastien Ostertag outlined the extent of France's euthanasia bill, that if passed would: 

• Catholic and otherwise Christian retirement homes and medical institutions will likely shut down since there is no conscience clause for religious institutions.
• Nurses and pharmacists can be forced to participate in euthanasia, since there is no conscience clause for them.
• Those who are poor and suffering may be pressured into death since access to palliative care isn't universal.
• The waiting/reflection period before death is only 48 hours.
• Estimates from France suggest that, based on France's population, 50,000 people could die every year from euthanasia.
• The family won't be able to ask the court to stop the decision to die.
• Proponents of the bill will likely push for further expansions, as in other jurisdictions, to allow children to be euthanized, people with mental illness and criminalizing those who try to dissuade someone from being killed.

Instead of competing with Canada's expansive and undefined killing by lethal poison law, France must examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject the bill. 

Québec legalized euthanasia in 2015 based on "exceptional circumstances". The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

We demand a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law. We want real medical care.

*Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)

By Gordon Friesen & Alex Schadenberg

President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

EPC has an online petition and post-cards to be sent to members of parliment as well as a traditional paper petition demanding a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law. 

*Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)

Contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca to order post-cards or paper petitions at no cost.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is petitioning the government to undertake a complete, and long-promised review of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Events have unfolded in a completely unexpected and alarming fashion; that current policy has little to do with its originally stated intent of the law; that such policy is in fact led to a horrific course that no one anticipated (or very few) but which is now evolving under its own anti-human economic logic and impetus.

Even our organized resistance to euthanasia did not anticipate Canada's euthanasia law becoming so extreme. Canada has always made it a priority to champion fair treatment of the most vulnerable, in terms of access to needed care and services. For we all immediately understand that legal medical homicide threatens safety. What we did not understand is just how bad the law would become.

Very simply put, the "most vulnerable" narrative assumes that disputed benefits actually exist; that people are generally able to access appropriate services; that only certain groups (defined perhaps by economic, racial, gender, or ability criteria) are not. However, as the situation now exists in Canada, real health care --meaning truly life-affirming care, free of the pressure to accept euthanasia-- is hard to attain (in so far as that availability depends upon the State).

Good and decent doctors and nurses do exist, of course! And they are clearly among the most influential part of our Coalition. However, our chances of being treated properly as patients should not be dependant upon the personal moral compass of individual professionals who are now forced to operate as dissidents within a hostile system.

That is not at all how things were intended to be. We have always been taught to expect proper medical care as a right of citizenship. Our universal Canadian system was established with the precise goal of making such care available to all.

Shockingly, the true calamity we are now experiencing involves nothing less than the cynical replacement of that time-honoured medical ideal, with a radical, euthanasia-based, veterinary-style system of population management.

In this scheme, advanced medical treatment will indeed be provided for those briefly incapacitated persons who may easily be restored to full productive status. But a radically different path is marked out for everyone else, which is to say: for anyone at all whose physical or mental status --for whatever reason-- might cause their expected economic contribution to fall below the cost of their upkeep. In these cases, illness, disability, and even simple aging itself, are now to be collapsed into the smallest social dimension possible, by actively steering all such individuals towards the newly discovered medical "treatment" of euthanasia.

Indeed, the only easy way to escape this trap requires personal resources large enough to privately make up the difference. For our ruling elites there is obviously no difficulty. Simply jump in the plane, and off they go, to state-of-the-art facilities provided by dynamic extra-national organizations dedicated to the satisfaction of every client whim (medical or otherwise) in settings of luxury.

However, in Canada few individuals possess such options. The available earnings of the entire working and middle classes are already fully committed to the spending policies of which medical care is by far the greatest component. For the individual taxpayer, that money cannot be spent twice. No personal budgetary room remains for typical Canadians to pay, out of pocket, for real medical care.

To repeat the essential: service deprivation is now the norm, not the exception. To portray this as a "most vulnerable" issue (wholly, or even primarily) would require the redefinition of "most vulnerable" to include any person whose speedy recovery cannot guarantee prompt return on investment. And in the normal experience of accident and aging (while excluding our rulers) this is a category which includes the entire population.

Alex Schadenberg May 5 presentation

The EPC presentation to the AMAD Committee on May 5 stated that Canada needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law, which was actually part of the original euthanasia law that was implemented in June 2016. I stated:

...Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) who died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025. 

Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.

The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

In short, the problem of euthanasia affects every person at certain seasons in their life. Our common problem is the deliberate promotion of euthanasia by the State. It is the shameless presentation of medical homicide as a legitimate solution for many problems. Nor have we seen the worst. We may now expect decision-makers to actually lower care standards on purpose. For if suffering is assumed to have a cure --in euthanasia-- then suffering can no longer be allowed to impede rationalization.

In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that very few people could have suspected that a supposedly limited access to voluntary euthanasia might ever devolve into the scale of industrial destruction, of human life, to which we are now witness. Quite naturally, many people have come to question the "why" and the "how" of such a calamitous outcome.

And that is why we are calling for a complete review of Canada's euthanasia policy.

*Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)

We demand a full review, as originally promised in the original law but never happened: an open and unfiltered scrutiny of current practice, accompanied at each stage by questions of past decisions. Everything must be on the table.

We further believe that serious changes must result. For we want real medical care.

 

Link to our letter to federal and provincial parliaments (Link to letter).