Letter to Members of Parliament - Support Bill C-218

Bill C-218 will go to a vote on October 7. Instructions to Help prevent euthanasia for mental illness (Link to article).

Dear (Name of Member of Parliament): 

My name is Debbie Fisher and I write this letter to you to ask for your support for Bill C-218. I am confident you are aware of those who suffer with mental illness and I am very concerned that mental illness could lead someone to request medical aid in dying. I do not understand how a mentally ill person could be capable of making that choice. We need to help people with mental illness, not offer assistance to die. Have we as a nation become that tolerant of legalized killing? 

My beautiful mother became depressed in 2019 due the quality of her life as a senior person. She feared she was a burden to her family due to her deteriorating health. 

During a stay in the hospital after she took too much of her medication, I was approached by a doctor who informed me that my mother wished to die. I was very upset because I knew what the implications were to this revelation. Fortunately, my Mom had signed a legal document, when she was of sound mind, to prevent her from being assisted with suicide or euthanasia. I told the doctor that my mother, who was a woman of faith, may have wanted to die but she didn’t want to be killed. By the grace of God she recovered and on her 94th birthday she went bowling with her grandchildren and great grandchildren. She passed 3 months later of natural causes.

My mother was offered help through support and a reason to live – not killing. How many mentally compromised people will die if the law is changed to allow MAID for the mentally ill? How can it even be legal for a mentally ill person to make that kind of request?

I am begging you to vote yes to Bill C-218 on October 7th and put the brakes on this idea that the mentally ill should have access to assistance in dying and euthanasia.

Respectfully, 
Debbie Fisher

Bill C-218 will go to a vote on October 7. Help prevent euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill C-218, the bill to prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria was debated on December 5, 2025 and September 23, 2026. 

Bill C-218 will go to a vote on October 7.

In March 2021, the Canada's parliament expanded the euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7. One of the expansions in the law  permitted euthanasia for a mental illness alone. but, at that time, the government declared a two-year moratorium to provide time to prepare for the change.

The government has now delayed the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, three times with implementation approved for March 17, 2027.

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 to prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness as the sole criteria. 

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent MAID for mental illness as a sole criteria.

Bill C-218 had it's first hour of debate on December 5, 2025, the second hour of debate on September 23, 2026  and the vote is scheduled for Wednesday October 7, 2026.

There are several ways that you can help Bill C-218 be passed:

1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to info@epcc.ca.
4. Contact your Member of Parliament (MP) and share your story and your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
5. It is easier to call your Member of Parliament. The phone number is part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness. 

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC with polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:

At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.

To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:

• Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with that issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
• Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
• Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact the Member of Parliament.

More information on Bill C-218.

• Bill C-218 introduced to prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Support Bill C-218. No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Supporting Bill C-218 - I am so thankful to be alive (Link). 
• I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Patti's story. Support Bill C-218. (Link).
• The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD (euthanasia) for mental illness (Link).

Bill C-218 debated in parliament on September 23, 2026.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill C-218, the bill that would prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria, had its first hour of debate on December 5, 2025 and its second hour of debate on September 23, 2026 and will go to a vote on Wednesday October 7.

(Link to the full speech by Tamara Jansen)

(Link to the full speech by Michael Cooper)

The September 23, 2026 debate began at 5:42 pm on Bill C-218 with a speech from Luc Thériault (Montcalm) (BQ) who opposes Bill C-218 and supports euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. Thériault suggests that prohibiting euthanasia based on mental illness, as a sole criteria, is unconstitutional. 

Luc Thériault (BQ)

Thériault refers to the leading psychiatrists who stated that it is impossible to determine if a psychiatric condition is irremediable in this way:

a few psychiatrists use anecdotal, unsubstantiated claims to assert that every mental illness is treatable or curable, but they also say that psychiatry is wrong about both prognoses and diagnoses. Those psychiatrists cannot explain why we should rely on anecdotal, unsubstantiated accounts involving patients whom they say would have met the MAID eligibility criteria and safeguards set out in the expert panel report when those psychiatrists have no experience with MAID, either as assessors or providers, and when they are are effectively opposed to track 2 or MAID in general.

Thériault undermines the evidence from leading psychiatrists across Canada as being a few psychiatrists with anecdotal evidence.

Thériault ends his speech by stating:

The Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-218 and proposes that the dispute over whether the exclusion of patients constitutes discrimination be clarified by the Supreme Court.

Michael Cooper (CPC)

The next speech began at 5:53 pm by Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Sturgeon River) (CPC) who explained the history of the issue of euthanasia for mental illness alone. (Link to the full speech by Michael Cooper). Cooper states:

Back in 2021, the then Liberal justice minister David Lametti, at the eleventh hour, accepted a radical Senate amendment, which he initially opposed, that set the train in motion for the expansion of MAID for mental illness, effective March 2023. There was no meaningful study, no meaningful consultation and no meaningful debate. The Liberals simply rammed it through. This was on a question of life and death concerning among the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society. It could not be more reckless than that.

Incredible speech by Tamara Jansen in parliament on Bill C-218.

The speech in parliament by Tamara Jansen Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City) on September 23, 2026 at 18:32 pm in support of Bill C-218, a bill that would prevent (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. Jansen sponsored Bill C-218. 

I want to begin by remembering young Kiano Vafaeian who lost his life to MAiD

Kiano was only 26 years old.

He had lived with Type 1 diabetes since he was four. After a serious car accident as a teenager, he also struggled with his mental health, and later he lost vision in one eye.

In 2022, when he was just 23 years old, Kiano sought MAiD in Ontario. His mother, Margaret, fought desperately to keep her son alive.

And she succeeded.

For a time.

But Kiano had become obsessed with getting MAiD. He continued to request it from Ontario health until they told him straight out he would never qualify in Ontario but shockingly suggested other jurisdictions he could contact in his quest to end his life. Sadly, he found a willing doctor in British Columbia, where he received MAiD on December 30, 2025 from the now infamous Dr Elen Wiebe.

Tamara Jansen (CPC)

He was 26.

And when I heard Kiano's story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother.

In 2023 he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying but wanted to live. But the medical staff at Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life.

While laying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward he was asked, not once, not twice, not three, four, or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAiD!

They were relentless.

They pressed him saying that they didn’t think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had the will to live.

So that final time he gave them a big Hell No!

I’m very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life…..for having the courage and commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was only for another 8 or 10 months.

He had time to mend fences, make friends with the staff at Hospice, say goodbye to his family.

This is why bill C 218 is necessary.

Because not everyone will be able to fight the way my brother fought. Not everyone will have the strength to say no six times.

And when someone is sick, frightened, depressed or unable to see any hope for tomorrow, surely the responsibility of our medical system is not to reinforce their despair, but to protect them while they are vulnerable and help them find their way back to hope.

That is particularly true when we are talking about mental illness.

For years, Conservatives have warned that expanding MAiD to people suffering solely from mental illness crosses a line we should not cross.

We were told the safeguards would be enough. We were told the system could be made ready.

Yet the implementation has been delayed again and again, while the fundamental question remains unanswered: how can we declare that a person's mental illness is irremediable when we cannot reliably know that they will never recover?

But we do know one thing with absolute certainty: once that life is ended, there is no tomorrow.

When we first debated this bill, members told us to wait for the Special Joint Committee to do its work.

Well, it has.

The committee heard the evidence and recommended that people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness be indefinitely excluded from MAiD eligibility.

Parliament asked for that review. We now have its answer.

And if the concern with Bill C-218 is the wording and the use of the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness”, then let us fix the wording at committee.

We are prepared to work with the government at committee to make the technical changes.

A bill should not be defeated at second reading over technical wording when there is agreement on the principle.

The scheduled expansion is coming in March. So let us work together and send this bill to committee.

The measure of a compassionate society is not how efficiently it helps people die. It is whether, in the moment when someone can no longer see the value of their own life, the rest of us are prepared to see it for them.

Our answer to suffering should be care. Our answer to despair should be hope. And when someone believes there is no possibility of recovery, Canada should never be the one to agree with them.

That is why I am asking my colleagues to vote for Bill C-218.

Give Canadians the time, the care and the hope they need.

Give them the right to recover.

Michael Cooper: Speech in parliament on September 23, in support of Bill C-218.

The speech in parliament by Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Sturgeon River) on September 23, 2026 starting at 5:53 pm in support of Bill C-218, a bill that would prevent (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria.

Michael Cooper

I rise in strong support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act, introduced by my friend, the member for . The title of the bill fully reflects the substance of the bill. It is the right to recover: to give persons struggling with mental health challenges hope and help, instead of state-sanctioned, state-administered death, by putting an indefinite pause on the Liberal government's ill-thought-out expansion of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

I commend the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing forward the bill, because it is absolutely needed. We need legislation to be passed by Parliament. Otherwise, this ill-thought-out expansion will take effect in March 2027.

I have to say that it should never have been this way. It should never have come to this. The planned expansion is a master class in how not to do policy and how not to legislate.

Back in 2021, the then Liberal justice minister David Lametti, at the eleventh hour, accepted a radical Senate amendment, which he initially opposed, that set the train in motion for the expansion of MAID for mental illness, effective March 2023. There was no meaningful study, no meaningful consultation and no meaningful debate. The Liberals simply rammed it through. This was on a question of life and death concerning among the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society. It could not be more reckless than that.

Here we are, more than five years later, and the planned expansion has been nothing short of a mess. It has been completely shambolic, including the fact that the government has been all but forced to introduce two emergency bills to delay implementation because it did not do its homework at the outset.

Had the Liberals done their homework, they would have heard loud and clear what experts, including leading psychiatrists, have been saying, and that is that MAID for mental illness is a really bad idea, that it cannot be implemented safely for a multitude of reasons, not least of which include two unresolved clinical issues.
The first of those issues is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether someone suffering from a mental illness will get better. Indeed, many mental illnesses are remediable, and they are very difficult to predict in terms of a prognosis.

As Dr. Karin Neufeld, who is one of Canada's most renowned psychiatrists and is none other than the chair of the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, put it in her brief to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which is studying this very issue, “Psychiatric disorders lack reliable biomarkers, follow non-linear trajectories, and frequently improve after years of severe impairment.” Accordingly, Dr. Neufeld concluded that psychiatrists are poor predictors of long-term outcomes. Simply put, modern psychiatry lacks the tools to predict irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. It is so uncertain in terms of predicting irremediability, that studies show that psychiatrists get it right less than 50% of the time.

As Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the past chair of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, told the special joint committee, one would be better off flipping a coin to predict irremediability. This is on a matter, again, involving life and death. What that means is that if this expansion were to go forward in March 2027, or at all, tens of thousands of Canadians who could get better, recover and lead productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended.

This prospect is untenable, and it is unconscionable. The uncertainty around predicting irremediability not only renders MAID for mental illness a completely reckless and dangerous policy, but also makes it impossible to administer in compliance with the law. This is because a prerequisite to qualifying for MAID is that an individual must have a grievous and irremediable condition. Given that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, the legal basis for MAID cannot be satisfied, full stop. Therefore, we have not only a clinical issue, but also a major legal impediment to this expansion going forward.

The second major clinical issue identified is that it is difficult to distinguish, in cases of mental illness, a rational request for aid versus one motivated by suicidal ideation. This is because, in many cases, suicidal ideation, suicidal thoughts, are a symptom of the illness, and that is underscored by the fact that, in more than 90% of suicide deaths in Canada, mental illness is a factor. What that means is, if this were to go forward, long-standing suicide prevention efforts would be undermined. The mental health law would be upended, because given that suicidal ideation is often a symptom of mental illness, it begs the very practical question of which requests for MAID would merit intervention and suicide prevention versus the granting of MAID.

Given these unresolved clinical issues and other issues, and the clear opposition from the vast majority of psychiatrists, including the 17 chairs of psychiatry representing all 17 medical schools in Canada, who penned a letter to the Minister of Justice saying to put an indefinite pause on this, the Liberals twice, as I alluded to, introduced emergency legislation to kick the can down the road. They kicked the can down the road yet again with a new date of implementation, that being March 2027. Guess what. Nothing has changed. The same clinical issues remain unresolved, and there is no evidence that they will be or can be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever.

This is why the special joint committee on MAID, which wrapped up its work in June, of which I was a member, of which the member for Cloverdale—Langley City was a member, recommended that the government stop kicking the can down the road and simply put an indefinite pause on this ill-thought-out expansion. I would note that the recommendation was a unanimous recommendation from Conservative and Liberal MPs on the committee.

The government likes to claim it makes decisions based upon evidence, that it make decisions based upon the facts. Well, if that is so, then to follow the evidence, there is only one, objectively speaking, reasonable course of action for the government to take, which is to admit it got it wrong in 2021 and to reverse course by putting an indefinite pause on this expansion. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, provides a clear path forward to do just that.

Let us pass Bill C-218.

EPC victory. Court denies Brosseau euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have good news. Justice Carissima Mathen denied Claire Brosseau and Dying With Dignity an injunction to approve Brosseau to be killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on mental illness as the sole criteria. Brosseau lives in Toronto Ontario.

(Link to the court decision).

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in the Brosseau case and participated in the hearings on July 21/22, 2026. (Read). 

The cost to intervene in a court case is prohibitive. EPC continues to need at least $20,000 in donations to cover our current intervention costs. (Donation Link).

Mathen wrote:

For the following reasons, I find that the balance of convenience does not favour granting the relief that Ms. Brosseau seeks.

The "relief" that Brosseau was seeking was death by euthanasia. Mathen writes: 

The question at the heart of the balance of convenience inquiry is where the risk of error is best placed. That risk is for the judge hearing the plea for interlocutory relief; they must consider what happens if they apply the test incorrectly: Sharpe, at p. 26. In constitutional cases, determining that risk can be exceptionally difficult. In this case, Ms. Brosseau has presented compelling evidence of the harm she is and likely will continue to suffer. At the same time, the interests on the other side are considerable. They include Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues, and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play. On a full record, an application judge will have the tools to fully consider those interests and questions. On the current record, the court does not have such tools. Therefore, it is not possible to find for Ms. Brosseau on the relief that she seeks.

In other words, Mathen did not "grant relief" (approving euthanasia for Brosseau) because the court lacked the information that would be needed in order to make such a decision, but the information would be obtained in a full hearing, rather than an injunction hearing that this hearing represented.

This was a victory, but there is also bad news as the case of euthanasia for mental illness will continue in the court since Justice Mathen essentially found that Brosseau's case had merit.

Kristy Kirkup reported for the Globe and Mail on September 3:

In a written decision Thursday, Justice Carissima Mathen described how Ms. Brosseau presented compelling evidence of the harm she has suffered and will likely continue to endure.

Justice Mathen also noted the considerable interests on the other side including “Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play.”

I found it astounding that Justice Mathen mentions The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians that was released on June 17, 2026 but Mathen doesn't respond to the concerns of the government committee. The AMAD Committee advised the government to indefinitely pause the inclusion of (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness.

Dr Marcus Powlowski MP

As part of the supplemental information in the report, committee chair Dr Marcus Powlowski, the Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River explains his position on Canada's Charter by stating (starting at page 63 of the report):

I think the courts ought to conclude, as did our committee, that not allowing MAiD for mental illness, until such time as some fundamental concerns are addressed, is a reasonable limitation under s.1. These fundamental concerns are the difficulty/perhaps even impossibility of determining irremediability of mental suffering (a core requirement under the law), and the lack of ability to distinguish suicidality from rational decision making in someone with a mental illness (I will return to this issue, and explain why it is so important, at the end of this submission). Numerous witnesses cited these concerns as reasons why we should decline to expand MAiD to this population.

Powlowski argued that since Canada's law requires a person to have an irremediable medical condition, to be approved for euthanasia that the law would need to be amended to approve euthanasia for mental illness alone. He wrote:

But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written. Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better. 

Perhaps the simplest solution to the legal question is to recognize the requirement of irremediability as being dispositive of the issue. The law as written requires irremediability. If there is really no way to accurately determine irremediability it would seem we would need to change the law if we want to allow for MAiD for mental illness. 

Powlowski commented on the role of parliament and the role of the courts:

I would suggest the elected legislature is totally justified in drawing a line, in deciding that we are unwilling to support the state enabling physicians to taking the life of someone who, perhaps, would have gotten better. The decision of whether we do so is a moral decision and very much a reflection of what we value as a society. As such it is a decision more appropriately made by those of us who are elected by the members of society, and who are ultimately accountable to the people- at the poll box, rather than the unelected courts.

These comments were important and Justice Mathen should have considered them as part of her decision. The euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by the court legislating euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. 

Tamara Jansen (MP) to speak in Ontario on Bill C-218.

Tamara Jansen will be speaking in London, Hamilton and St. Catharines Ontario

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons, a bill that would prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone in Canada

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of (MAiD) euthanasia. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Tamara Jansen, the sponsor of Bill C-218, has speaking events in London, Hamilton & St Catharines Ontario.

Tuesday, August 25 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Andrew Lawton
Byron-Springbank Legion Branch 533
1276 Commissioners Rd W, London, Ontario

RSVP FOR LONDON

Wednesday, August 26 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Dan Muys
Ancaster Fairgrounds, Room AB - 630 Trinity Rd. S., Jerseyville, Ontario.

RSVP FOR HAMILTON

Thursday, August 27 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With Conservative candidate of record Bas Sluijmers
Grantham Lions Club - 732 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario 

RSVP FOR ST. CATHARINES

Bill C-218 received it's first hour of debate on December 5, 2025. It's second hour of debate is scheduled for soon after parliament returns in September.

Currently, on March 17, 2027 doctors and nurse practitioners will be allowed to kill patients, by lethal poison, when their sole underlying condition is a mental illness. A recent parliamentary report released on June 17, 2026 recommended that euthanasia for mental illness alone be indefinitely paused.

If passed, Bill C-218 will prevent euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. 

There are several effective ways you help get Bill C-218 passed:

1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to  info@epcc.ca.
4. Contact your Member of Parliament and share your story or share your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
5. Often it is easier and more effective to call your Member of Parliament. The phone numbers are part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness. 

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC on October 30 with new polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:

At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.

To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:

• Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with this issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
• Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
• Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact their Member of Parliament.

More information on Bill C-218.

• Bill C-218 introduced to prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Support Bill C-218. No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Supporting Bill C-218 - I am so thankful to be alive (Link). 
• I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Patti's story. Support Bill C-218. (Link).
• The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD (euthanasia) for mental illness (Link).

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.

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)

What Does ‘Suicide’ Have to do with the Oregon "MAiD" Model?

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is a disability activists and a member of the EPC-USA board.

Meghan Schrader

One time when I was testifying at an Oregon model "MAiD" hearing I decided to describe one of my episodes of psychotic depression in detail, to try to get legislators to observe parallels between what I was describing and the experiences of terminal illness that the proponents were describing. It struck me as a way to illustrate the overlap between the Oregon Model proponents’ logic that "MAiD" is a valid response to end of life suffering, and expansionists’ logic that “psychiatric MAiD” is a valid solution for extreme mental suffering.

Also, the Oregon "MAiD" model proponents describe disturbing physical symptoms at hearings all the time. So it should be ok for me to describe my past severe psychiatric symptoms, right?

The legislators looked at me kind of like I was high and then made comments along the lines that what I had described had nothing to do with the proposed law, but they appreciated my bravery in sharing my story.

I feel kind of silly about that testimony now. After all, I was describing severe mental illness, not a terminal illness like cancer. Also, maybe providing all those details came across as trauma dumping and attention-seeking. Perhaps it would have sufficed to say, “Having experienced mental illness in the past and observed expansionists efforts to legalize psychiatric euthanasia, I think society should not take another step towards that world by legalizing the Oregon model.”

But I still think that talking about severe mental illness and suicidal ideation during discussions about the Oregon model is less ridiculous than those legislators seemed to think. As disability rights opponents of assisted suicide have pointed out, the distinction between “terminally ill” and “disabled” can be blurrier than the Oregon model proponents would like it to be. There are some people who can live for years with their disabilities with the proper support, yet would die quickly if that support were withdrawn. And some of those people experience suicidal ideation. Moreover, there have been instances of people with mental illnesses like anorexia nervosa dying by assisted suicide. This abuse thins the distinction between “suicide” and assisted suicide” that the Oregon model proponents perceive.

Furthermore, some proponents have openly admitted that they want to medicalize disabled people’s suicides; famous euthanasia activist, Thaddeus Mason Pope told me so.

Nevertheless, I’ll entertain the position that there may often be meaningful distinctions between the “Oregon MAiD model” and “regular” suicide, with respect to the reasoning behind the decision, the possibility of graphic violence, the typical impact on family members, the length of time that the person had left to live, etc. So, I can understand why there are a lot of people who think that equating the Oregon "MAiD" model and suicide is “silly.”

I’ll again use my former pastor as an example. This pastor was a wonderful person and a dedicated faith leader. She did a lot of great work with marginalized people. She was also very anti-suicide. One time when I was sobbing in front of her about how much pain I was in during a bad bout of depression, she asked, “I don’t want to scare you, but as your pastor I need to know: are you having any thoughts about hurting yourself? Is there anything that we need to do to keep you safe?”

I wasn’t planning to harm myself, but I appreciated the compassion behind the pastor’s question.

This pastor also did a lot of terrific work with terminally ill people, and she disagreed with me about the Oregon assisted suicide model. When we had a friendly debate about the issue, she said, “Having been with people who have experienced a horrible death from Glioblastoma, I strongly reiterate my comments. And I hope that I would have the grace to make a similar choice.”

Obviously I disagree with the pastor, but I feel able to respect her motivations and logic. After all, she had had years of working with terminally ill people and I hadn’t. And she had worked with a lot of people experiencing suicidal ideation. So although assisted suicide and “regular” suicide both involve dying by one’s own hand (and hence meet the technical definition of suicide) I can “get where she was coming from.”

Unfortunately, not all assisted suicide proponents think like my former pastor. Some of them would like to expand assisted suicide to disabled people who aren’t dying. And that’s a situation where I think proponents’ distinction between assisted suicide and suicide is indisputably linked to ableism.

Disabled people are already systemically excluded from suicide prevention. Peer-reviewed research shows that there is a high suicide rate among people with disabilities and that people are more likely to think suicide is acceptable if the victim is disabled. There is also a lack of suicide prevention resources designed for people with disabilities. In that context, suicide prevention organizations equivocating on whether disabled people’s assisted suicide deaths are suicides falls into a longstanding pattern of abandonment.

The Oregon assisted suicide model proponents’ argument that assisted suicide is never suicide would be on much firmer ground if the Oregon model had never been used to kill people with anorexia, and if it were the only assisted suicide model that existed anywhere in the world. But it isn’t. Moreover, the Oregon model movement leaders routinely do things that normalize discussions about expanding assisted suicide such as by rubbing elbows with assisted suicide expansionists who have said that medicalizing the suicides of disabled people is ok. Compassion and Choices leaders cannot possibly have missed People Magazine and the New York Times’ enthusiastic platforming of people with chronic mental illnesses who would like to die by assisted suicide. Compassion and Choices leaders have published statements declining to take a position on whether Canada’s euthanasia (MAiD) program is ok, even though the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of People With Disabilities says that it’s not.

In short, although the Oregon model is ostensibly limited to terminally ill persons, it is helping to normalize the expansive proponents’ position that disabled people’s suicides are therapeutic.

Author Note: For a nuanced discussion of why what the Oregon Model proponents call "MAiD" is best described as “Assisted Suicide,” and why such “MAiD” is most accurately understood as a variation of suicide, read Harold Braswell’s article, “In Defense of "Physician-Assisted Suicide": Toward (and Back to) a Transparent, Destigmatizing Debate.”

The euthanasia committee got it right on mental illness. Parliament must go further.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

The Globe and Mail published an article by Dr Ramona Coelho, on June 29, 2026. 

Dr Coelho is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Western Ontario's Schulich School of Medicine and a past member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee.

Dr Coelho, who has written extensively on Canada's euthanasia law begins her article by explaining how the law is not protecting Canadians. She writes:

Thomas Dillon’s MAID assessment took place in 2023 outside a Tim Hortons in St. Thomas, Ont., after a psychiatrist had raised the option with him. He died at age 45, with his mental illness and addictions largely untreated. The MAID law was not precise enough to prevent cases like his – and that is a problem.

Dr Coelho continues by explaining the decision of Canada's parliamentary MAiD committee:

Canada’s parliamentary committee has recommended indefinitely pausing the 2027 planned expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID) where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. I testified at the committee. The recommendation is necessary, but Parliament must go further. The mental illness debate has exposed a problem that runs through the whole MAID framework.

The debate over MAID for mental illness has focused on several concerns, including the impossibility of reliably determining whether mental illness is irremediable, and the significant role that community life and supports play in recovery. We also cannot distinguish a “reasoned MAID request” from suicidality, leaving assessments without an objective standard, and therefore allowing bias to shape who accesses MAID versus suicide prevention and care.

Euthanasia proponents believe that physical and psychological suffering should be viewed in the same manner. Coelho suggests that a deeper problem is how uncertainty is addressed across MAID decision-making. Coelho explains:

In my work as a family physician serving marginalized patients, and as a former member of Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee (MDRC), I have seen similar uncertainty extend beyond MAID for solely psychiatric illness. In one MDRC case, a socially isolated woman with severe obesity and depression was deemed eligible for MAID after refusing any diagnostic workup or treatments that might have improved or reversed her condition. Eligibility was not shaped by a clear disease trajectory but by treatment refusal and disengagement from care, with neglect interpreted as irremediability.

In another, a man in his 70s with essential tremor, which is not typically considered to cause a serious decline in capability, was approved for MAID, despite his request being mainly driven by spousal bereavement.

In both these cases, a chronic, manageable condition became grounds for death once isolation, poverty or lack of care entered the clinical picture. That is structural ableism – the institutional assumption that living well with disability is impossible, leading clinicians to view death rather than support as the more appropriate response.

Dr Coelho then comments on the Track 2 euthanasia Ontario data:

Ontario data from Track 2 MAID – the option for those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable – confirms these concerns extend beyond individual cases. Nearly 30 per cent of Track 2 recipients were living in poverty, were less likely to have family members listed as their next of kin, and most were not offered mental-health, disability, housing or income supports. These patterns point directly to problems with the architecture of the law itself.

Dr Coelho explains that determination of a Track 1 euthanasia death ranges from 6 month prognosis to a 5 year prognosis, which means that euthanasia assessments are very uncertain at best and applying the same level of uncertainty to mental health assessments would be incredibly problematic. She then makes some suggestions for future parliamentary sessions.

As Parliament considers the next phase of MAID legislation, it must confront whether the law’s central concepts are precise. Avoiding unnecessary deaths requires clear statutory definitions of “reasonably foreseeable natural death,” “grievous and irremediable,” and “intolerable suffering,” along with oversight to stop interpretive drift and doctor-shopping. It requires restoring minimum waiting periods under Track 1 and introducing a real-time mechanism to pause MAID assessments when concerns are raised by families or clinicians.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for changes, including repealing Track 2 MAID due to risks related to discrimination and social vulnerability. When a system cannot reliably protect those most likely to be harmed, it should not be allowed. Track 2 is exactly that.

Dr Coelho ends her article by reminding the readers that euthanasia was legalized in Canada as an exemption to homicide. She states: 

The least we owe Canadians is a law that makes wrongful deaths harder, not easier.

Previous articles by or related to Dr Ramona Coelho (Articles Link).