Canada's disabled deserve supports, not faster path to death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Krista Carr

Krista Carr, the CEO of Inclusion Canada had a special article published in the London Free Press on June 15, 2026.

This article was published two days before the report of the Special Joint Euthanasia Committee report recommending that the Canadian government not extend euthanasia to mental illness alone.

Carr explains that the Canada's original euthanasia law that was passed in 2016 was essentially limited to people with a terminal condition who were suffering.

Carr suggests that most Canadians believe that the law remains the same, but in fact Canada's law was expanded in 2021 to include people with disabilities who are not terminally ill. Carr explains:

But Canada’s MAID framework has evolved significantly since then. In 2021, Parliament expanded the law through Bill C-7, creating two pathways for assisted death. The first pathway applies to people whose natural death is imminent and expected soon (reasonably foreseeable).

The second — known as “Track 2” — allows separate access to MAID for individuals with disabilities who are not dying.

This expansion fundamentally changed the scope of assisted dying in Canada.

Track 2 means that assisted suicide may be available to people living with disabilities even when they are not nearing the end of life. Thousands of Canadians have already accessed MAID through this pathway. Between 2021 and 2024, a total of 2,050 people died from Track 2 MAID.

Carr explains the significance with expanding the law.

People with disabilities and disability organizations across the country have warned that Track 2 creates serious risks. Many individuals seeking MAID have described suffering related not to medical conditions alone but to poverty, housing insecurity, social isolation or lack of disability supports.

These are not medical failures. They are social failures.

For people with intellectual disabilities and many others in the disability community, the concern is straightforward: no one should feel that assisted suicide is easier to access than the supports needed to live with dignity.

Carr suggests that Canada's euthanasia law combined with homelessness, poverty and a gap in disability supports, combined poor access to mental health and community supports has created a serious problem for people with disabilities. Carr writes:

Against this broken backdrop, expanding assisted death beyond end-of-life situations risks sending a troubling message — that the suffering created by social inequality can be addressed through assisted suicide rather than social reform.

And now Parliament is once again debating whether to expand MAID further to also include mental illness. But what happened to suicide prevention? Are people with disabilities not entitled to the same suicide prevention as everyone else?

Carr then comments on the recent parliamentary hearings by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Aid in Dying, that yesterday recommended to parliament that euthanasia for mental illness not be implemented in Canada. Carr continued

Legitimate questions have been raised about whether Canada’s current framework adequately protects people who are living with structural disadvantage. 

These questions are now before the courts. A coalition of disability organizations, including Inclusion Canada, has launched a Charter challenge arguing that Track 2 violates equality rights and the right to life guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case asks whether Canada’s laws are discriminating against people with disabilities by allowing assisted death in circumstances where death is not imminent. 

Canadians should agree on one principle: people with disabilities deserve the same commitment to dignity, support and opportunity as anyone else. 

Persons with disabilities deserve the same response other Canadians receive when they are suffering: investment in supports, housing, and mental health services, not a faster path to death. Our politicians should be helping people live meaningful lives, not end them.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the challenge by Inclusion Canada to eliminate Track 2 euthanasia (people who are not otherwise dying). We agree that Canada's euthanasia law focuses on killing people with disabilities with Track 2 cases being exclusively for people with disabilities.

We also thank Krista Carr and Inclusion Canada for their leadership. 

Doctor admits to killing patient with mental illness by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill C-218 is a private members bill that is being debated in Canada. If passed Bill C-218 would prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

• Guide to supporting Bill C-218 (Link).
• No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).

An article that was published in the Toronto Star on December 13, 2025 titled: Should MAiD be extended to include those with mental illness? is a debate between Dr Ellen Wiebe, Canada's most notorious euthanasia killer and Dr John Maher, a psychiatrist and ethicist who focuses on caring for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses.

Dr Ellen Wiebe

Based on the language of the law, if MAiD for Mental Illness alone begins in March 2027, Dr Maher's patient group would possibly qualify to be poisoned to death in Canada. 

The article begins:

Dr. Ellen Wiebe: I believe that Canadians have a right to control their dying proces and that those rights shouldn't be limited by a diagnosis. If someone has a psychiatric illness, they should have the same right to choose MAiD as someone with a physical illness.

Dr John Maher: I oppose MAiD for mental illness because it robs people of hope. It normalizes suicide.

Wiebe: I have done probably 1,000 MAiD assessments. The law says that two clinicians must assess and fine someone eligible for MAiD.

Maher: I know you've done 1,000 but that's my concern; that the criteria are so easily met. I worry that people will go doctor shopping until they get the answer they want.

Dr. John Maher

Dr Wiebe believes that euthanasia should be available for people with psychiatric conditions. The debate continued:

Wiebe: The guidelines say a person is eligible for MAiD when no reasonable treatments remain. What is "reasonable" is decided by the clinician and the patient together. A condition is considered incurable when it's symptoms cannot be sufficiently or enduringly relieved.

Maher: But patients don't know whether their condition is incurable. They can't. They come to you for treatment, for your professional expertise.

Wiebe expresses that there are no clear euthanasia guidelines in Canada. The debate continues:

Wiebe: The issue is that we don't know exactly what causes each psychiatric condition. We know there are genetic factors. We know there are brain structure factors. We know there are brain chemistry factors. The difference between psychiatric illnesses and neurological conditions such as dementia is unclear.

Maher: Psychiatric illnesses are treatable. Dementia is not. They are very different. Dementia is a neuro-degenerative disease. Most psychiatric disorders can be treated. And you cannot predict who will recover and who won't.

I have seen people recover after 20 years of severe psychotic illness. I have treated patients who were told they would never improve, and they did. There is an accumulation of wisdom. And respectfully, you don't have the psychiatric expertise that I do.

Wiebe tries to convince a psychiatrist that she understands psychiatry. Wiebe outlines the euthanasia death of a person with mental illess:

Wiebe: No I use professional guidance. I provided MAiD for mental illness before legislation excluded it. My patient, E.F., had seven years of treatment by numerous psychiatrists for a severe conversion disorder (a psychiatric condtion where a person experiences unexplained physical symptoms.)

Maher: Yes, a very shocking case that she got approved; a woman whose suffering was real but whose illness was psychiatric, not terminal.

Wiebe: The issue was how much more she had to suffer. She had the right to say, "I am not suffering anymore."

Maher: Agreed. Our laws allow patients to refuse treatment, unlike in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where doctors must ensure that all reasonable medical and psychiatric treatments have been attempted and proven ineffective before assisted dying can be considered.

Wiebe: For E.F. I reviewed extensive psychiatric documentation. I was satisfied she met the criteria for MAiD. She suffered from 5 physical conditions (including migranes, digestive failure, and limited mobility) that together caused unbearable suffering and tried every treatment that was considered possibly effective.

Maher: You may believe she did, but I know psychiatrists who reviewed the case and were shocked by the treatments that were not attempted.

You have said that you would provide MAiD to people on wait-lists for treatment, by assessing their suffering at that point in time. But the law says patients must have an irremediable condition. That condition is not met if someone does not wait for treatments that may help.

We have a system that doesn't provide adequate care. Only one in three Canadians receive adequate mental-health care in a timely manner, and only one in five children.

Maher points out that the psychiatric euthanasia case that Wiebe carried-out was shocking. The debate continued:

Wiebe: People who choose MAiD want death to be certain. They do not want secrecy. They want to be able to invite their friends. For E.F. we had 10 family members and friends present to support her, tell her how proud they were and give her hugs. That is not suicide.

Maher: I acknowledge that patients with mental illnesses are suffering. These are terrible diseases. But if someone is taking steps to arrange their own death - that is a suicidal plan.

If you are going to offer someone death, you rob them of hope. If you are going to say, "There is nothing more we can do," then it should be true.

Wiebe wants to assure us that E.F.'s death was supported by her family but Maher points out that she was robbed of hope. The debated continued:

Wiebe: MAiD providers must determine whether a patient has the capacity to make a sound medical decision. Patients must be able to understand the consequences of both treatment and refusing treatment.

We are not talking about life or death. We are talking about dying now or dying later.

For mental health cases, I am more likely to need additional corroboration. I would also consult psychiatrist colleagues when I have questions.

It is concerning that Wiebe would suggest that these are not cases of life or death, the debate continued:

Maher: Many people suffering from mental illnesses are pushed to the fringes of society, facing both stigma and poverty. Many people I work with survive on food banks and live in bedbug  and cockroach infested rooms. You walk into these places and think, this cannot be Canada. To then offer them death deeps their vulnerability.

Wiebe: Most of our assisted dying patients are wealthy, well-educated and in charge of their lives.

We do have some vulnerable people, and it factors into our assessment. I look at people in the places you describe, with cockroaches, and ask myself; if the patient were rich, would he want to live longer? I cannot make him rich, and he has a horrible illness causing unbearable suffering, so I let him make his decision.

Maher states that many of his patients, with mental illness, live in poverty, while Wiebe states that most of her killings are wealthy people. The debate continues:

Maher: I understand your goal of relieving suffering. I understand your goal of respecting what patients want. But what confuses me is how you can offer MAiD to people with mental illness who could recover and live long, full lives. How are you able to do that?

Wiebe: I think providing MAiD for people with mental illnesses will be similar to Track 2 cases now (where death is not reasonably foreseeable). When I see someone with chronic fatigue or chronic pain, I need to know they have tried accepted treatments. I will be doing the same when the time comes for mental illness. I have learned from providers in Belgium, where assessments take at least a year, and I hope we will be doing those kind of assessments here.

I have experience with mental illness in my practice and also in my family. My stepson has suffered from schizophrenia for 20 years. He doesn't always make decisions that his parents approve of, but I respect his rights.

Maher completes his part of the debate stating that killing people with mental illness essentially means killing people that may recover and may have years to live a full life while Wiebe responds by saying that MAiD for Mental Illness alone is the same as Track 2 euthanasia, that kills people who are not terminally ill.

Canadian Bioethicist: Euthanasia Should Not Be Considered ‘Special’

This article was published by National Review online on January 18, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Canada has leaped into euthanasia's moral abyss with a smile on its face. Since 2015, killable categories have expanded dramatically, from those whose death is "reasonably foreseeable'' — a category that was already so broad you could drive a hearse through it — to the chronically ill, people with disabilities, the frail elderly, and, starting next year, the mentally ill.

More than 16,000 Canadians were killed by doctors and nurse practitioners last year. It's the fifth-most-common cause of death in the country.

Many commentators point to these and other facts about Canada’s euthanasia regime to argue against legalization. Defenders of euthanasia know this and have mounted counternarratives trying to convince us that so many killings of such a varied numbers of people is an excellent outcome of a humane policy. The latest example is in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics, in an article by bioethicist and philosophy professor Wayne Sumner, in which he argues that euthanasia should be considered a ho-hum question, nothing to worry about.

Sumner shrugs at the dramatic increase in the numbers killed since legalization because euthanasia is just another medical treatment and should not be considered to be extraordinary. Indeed, to Sumner, doctors’ killing patients is really no different than performing hip replacements. Ditto abortion. And since an increase in abortion rates (to him) is a good, and no one objects to more hip replacements, what’s the problem with the statistical increase in deaths by euthanasia? From “What’s So Special About Medically Assisted Dying?”:

If we regard an increasing number of joint replacements or abortions as a success, with supply having risen to meet demand, why should we think that an increasing number of MAiD provisions is a failure, or somehow a problem? If more awareness, more providers, and more support are good things for these other services, why are they a bad thing for MAiD? Why should we think differently about MAiD than we do about other medical procedures? What’s so special about MAiD?

Let me count the ways.

1. Euthanasia isn’t about improving life or treating disease, as a hip replacement is, but causing death of the patient. That makes the act different in kind from true medical treatments.
2. Legalized killing changes culture. Once euthanasia becomes normalized, people become acclimated to the terminations of vulnerable people. For example, a recent poll of Canadians found that 28 percent of respondents approved strongly or moderately of allowing euthanasia for homelessness! Before legalization, I can’t imagine a pollster even asking the question.
3. Legalization leads to the objectification of the killable caste. Hence, in Canada, the conjoining of euthanasia with organ-harvesting. Once that happens, organ donation can easily become a prime factor in a suicidal patient’s asking to die, as it offers society a utilitarian stake in suicidal patients.
4. It can become a means of reducing medical costs. After all, what could be a cheaper “treatment” than a lethal jab?
5. It can supplant the provision of proper medical care. Indeed, in Canada, several patients have been euthanized after they couldn’t access specialized care.
6. If it is not “special,” why the need for guidelines and restrictions? If someone wants to be dead because they find continued life unacceptable, why say no?

Sumner makes the usual argument that killing is no different than refusing life-sustaining medical treatment, since both “shorten” life.

Even before MAiD was legalized, those who were so disposed had available to them a number of ways of managing their exit from the world. If their condition required life-sustaining treatment — whether this took the form of technological support or surgical intervention or continuing medication — they could refuse further treatment and so hasten their death. If it did not require such treatment, they still had the option of seeking death by refusing food and water. Plus, of course, the time-honoured method of death by overdose of pharmaceuticals.

Suicide is supposedly “time-honoured”! See what I mean about euthanasia changing culture?

Bioethicists: Euthanasia Okay for ‘Unjust Social Conditions’

This article was published by National Review online on December 13, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Once killing the sufferer becomes a societally acceptable means for ending suffering, there becomes no end to the “suffering” that justifies human termination. We can see this phenomenon most vividly in Canada, because it is happening there more quickly than in most cultures. 

For example, a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.

Euthanasia mutates a society’s soul. I can’t imagine that being true ten years ago before euthanasia became legal.

This kind of abandoned thinking finds enthusiastic, albeit not unanimous, expression among secular bioethicists. In fact, two Canadian bioethicists just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics — a prestigious British Medical Journal publication — arguing that “unjust social conditions” justify lethal jabs (euphemistically called MAiD, for “medical assistance in dying”). The argument claims that killing is a form of “harm reduction.”

The authors even admit such cases have already occurred legally in Canada. From “Choosing Death in Unjust Conditions: Hope, Autonomy, and Harm Reduction” (my emphasis):

In 2022, an individual in Canada, who had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), received MAiD. However, by their own description, their decision to choose MAiD was driven primarily by the fact that they were unable to access affordable housing compatible with MCS. While it was true that they suffered from an illness, disease or disability that caused ‘enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable’ as specified under the eligibility criteria of Bill C-14 [that recently expanded eligibility beyond death being “reasonably foreseeable], the primary source of their suffering was an inability to find appropriate housing, not the condition itself. Another person, also with MCS, writes: ‘I’ve applied for MAiD essentially because of abject poverty’.

Good grief. The patient in question is dead — not because of their medical but housing conditions. And doctors used the physical issues as pretext for justifying the killing as within the law!

The authors approve of allowing euthanasia for reasons of social injustice as a means of “harm reduction.” And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment:

In the case of the availability of MAiD in Canada to people who not only might but have explicitly said they would choose differently if they had access to the options they preferred, we argue that the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.

This, even though Canada’s socialized health-care system is in crisis:

Access to healthcare across nearly all dimensions continues to deteriorate in the wake of the pandemic even outside of long-term and palliative care, from basic care, to surgical backlogs, to a general consensus that the system is in a state of collapse. In this context, refusing options to people who autonomously pursue MAiD amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world. This is a world that currently does not exist and is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Even if it did, it is unfortunately even more unlikely that the people whose current suffering has led them to request MAiD will realise its benefits.

So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”

The authors conclude:

We disagree with any claim that the unjust lack of choices available to people is alone sufficient to undermine their autonomy. Those who launch legal proceedings or request and receive MAiD are unlikely examples of people whose reduced opportunities have led them to lose all hope and motivation for pursuing personally meaningful courses of action. Moreover, neither a reduction of opportunities in itself, nor the existence of oppressive ableist norms, is sufficient to directly undermine autonomy…Restricting an autonomous choice to pursue MAiD due to the injustice of current non-ideal circumstances causes more harm than allowing the choice to pursue MAiD, even though that choice is deeply tragic.

Bioethics is growing increasingly monstrous. And that matters because these are the so-called “experts” who exert tremendous influence on our laws and regulations, in court rulings, over the attitudes of journalists, among the purveyors of popular culture, and, ultimately, upon public attitudes.

Moreover, Canada is our closest cultural cousin. If such a crass death-embracing attitude developed there so quickly with the legalization of euthanasia, it will happen here too — and, indeed, almost all state laws allowing doctor-prescribed death already expanded their guidelines. Which is why, if we want to follow the truly compassionate course, it is a matter of great urgency that we reject all further legalization of assisted suicide in the United States.

Disability Justice Lesson 3 - No One Has The High Ground on Disability Rights.

Meghan Schrader

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

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has made a principled statement responding to Brian Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia for mentally ill homeless people that calls for Kilmeade to resign. I support that statement, but I’ve observed reactions to Kilmeade’s comment from across the ideological spectrum that I think reflect the need for people of all political persuasions to reflect on how they or their ideologies have failed people with disabilities.

For example, a writer for MSNBC asserted that Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia represented “right wing narratives about the poor.” Well, yes and no.

In my experience people from all over the political spectrum have contempt for mentally ill, disabled and/or homeless people. It depends on the person.

I have spent a lot of time hanging out in environments dominated by political ideologies of all kinds, and I have experienced the same behaviors from ableist people, whether they like to watch Fox News or MSNBC.

For instance, one of my most traumatic experiences of bullying happened at a legalistic, Calvinist summer camp, and I would be very surprised if the bullies’ parents weren’t conservative Republicans. But, I grew up in Massachusetts’ progressive school system, where guidance and Special Education personnel thought that my learning disability gave them the right to try to force me to drop out of high school. Moreover, eugenics ideology is premised on hatred for people with disabilities, and progressives living between the 1910s and the 1950s generally embraced eugenics as the new cool thing. Eugenics was framed as something that put off the old trappings of Christianity that validated the births and care of people with disabilities and used science to prevent disability from happening in the first place. I think that these ideas are echoed in today’s “MAiD” discussions when progressive-identifying proponents conflate disability justice objections to “MAiD” with religious ones and dismiss the disability justice movement’s opposition to “MAiD” as “moral panic.”

Another example of progressive hypocrisy and ableism can be observed in California governor and “MAiD” proponent Gavin Newsom response to Kilmeade’s comment; Newsom responded by posting Proverbs 21:13 on social media: “Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Newsom’s post made me feel used, because his response to homelessness isn’t really better than Kilmeade’s. For instance, Newsom responded to homelessness in California by spearheading Proposition 1, which made it easier to incarcerate mentally ill people in institutions indefinitely, directing billions of dollars to that effort. Pretty much every disability rights organization in the country pleaded with Newsom to eschew such “Modern Ugly Laws” and spend that money on community support instead, but he didn’t care.

This apathy helps create conditions for the involuntary euthanasia Kilmeade proposes. For example, around the same time that Newsom spearheaded Proposition 1, his Democratic colleague Catherine Blakespear, who I doubt has spent much time thinking about disability justice, introduced legislation to expand California’s “MAiD” law to disabled people with "grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who weren’t terminally ill. Given that people with “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who also have severe mental illnesses would kill themselves with “MAiD” to avoid being institutionalized, and staff in institutions would coerce such people into dying by “MAiD,” Newsom’s disability policies would result in the coerced euthanasia that Kilmeade suggested.

Moreover, I do not know what vocal “MAiD” movement leader Thaddeus Mason Pope’s political beliefs are, but I doubt that he is a member of the Religious Right, and he has blithely admitted that there will be involuntary euthanasia in the future.

In contrast, examples of conservative ableism, even from some assisted suicide opponents, can be observed in the some of the pieces published by the conservative Christian satire publication the Babylon Bee. Regardless of what I think about the Babylon’s political orientation or its stories in general, I thought the story "Disaster As Canada Switches Suicide Prevention Hotline With Suicide Assistance Hotline” that a conservative friend posted on their Facebook timeline was an incisive commentary about “MAiD” undermining suicide prevention.

But, then the Babylon Bee undermines the benefit of that piece by featuring stories that its editors think are trenchant commentaries on diversity and equity initiatives, like “Secret Service Beefs Up Trump’s Security With Squad of Blind Midgets,” “Meet The LAFD’s First Paraplegic Fireman,” “Powerful: This Broadway Production Called A Little Retarded Girl Up On Stage,” “Mark Cuban Inspires Thousands By Proving Even The Very Retarded Can Become Wealthy,” and “Delta Introduces New Short Plane For Special Needs Pilots.” 

These articles use slurs and mockery that have been linked to ableist policies and behavior for decades. Assisted suicide opponents cannot do such things, unless you want disabled people to hate you very, very much. And no matter what disabled people think of you or your ideology, such poisonous rhetoric is not OK.

Moreover, the Republican Party is generally understood to fall on the more “conservative” end of the political spectrum, and this Republican administration has championed several policies that weaken the disability rights infrastructure in the United States. As a former Special Education student who has published research in the field of disability studies and spent a lot of time following disability advocacy efforts, I can tell you that these policies will have a much worse impact on disabled people’s lives than anything published by the Babylon Bee. This is not a partisan position; if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election and her administration were attempting to implement these policies, everyone I know in the disability justice movement would take a position of “Screw Kamala Harris.”

I urge euthanasia opponents to respond to Kilmeade’s comment by understanding that if “MAiD” were ever legalized for disabled people in the United States, the combination of the aforementioned policies would push disabled people towards “MAiD.” Doing everything you can to advance the full participation of disabled people in society is one of the most important things that euthanasia opponents can do to fight both “MAiD” and the high suicide rate among people with disabilities.

I understand that ableism isn’t always the individual’s “fault.” We live in a culture that has made disability history and rights invisible for decades, so a lot of the people doing or saying the ableist things don’t have the knowledge to know any better.

Nevertheless, ableism from across the ideological spectrum is causing fourth-class citizenship for disabled people all over the world. The broader “MAiD” movement falls on a spectrum of ableist violence and oppression; it is a consequence of people from all over the ideological landscape ignoring disability rights. If a society marginalizes and dehumanizes members of a minority group enough, then it becomes easier for the average person to accept killing members of that group. So, in order to fight “MAiD,” it is necessary to correct the pattern of dehumanization and ableism that “MAiD” takes to a lethal extreme.

Therefore, I think that responding to violent, ableist comments from people like Kilmeade requires humble reflection by everyone. Perhaps an example of soul-searching that people from all over the religious spectrum would be wise to emulate is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14. In the parable a Pharisee brags to God about what a great guy he is and says, “Thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there!” This is the behavior that I feel I have observed from people all over the political spectrum with regard to their treatment of disabled persons: people are sure that whatever political agenda they have in mind is righteous and helpful to marginalized people, including disabled people, even as all political “tribes” rarely pursue disability rights for their own sake.

In contrast, I think the Tax Collector’s behavior provides a model for discussions about our culture’s ineffectual and prejudiced approach to disability rights. Addressing the ableism that makes people feel comfortable suggesting involuntary euthanasia requires people from across the political spectrum to “beat their breasts” and “repent” for their complicity in ableism.

Then we can collaborate on creating a world that is diametrically opposed to the world suggested by Kilmeade and Thaddeus Mason Pope. We can work together to make ethical and policy decisions that put disabled people’s interests first, not just with regard to preventing the medicalization of disabled people’s suicides via “MAiD,” but through the creation of social policies that allow disabled people to flourish.

Kilmeade must not just apologize. He must resign.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Wesley Smith wrote an article about Brian Kilmeade stating: ‘Just Kill’ Mentally Ill Homeless Who Refuse Help (Link).

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade apologized on Sunday for saying that homeless and mentally ill people should be killed. 

Kilmeade's apology is not enough, Kilmeade should resign.

A Guardian article by José Olivares wrote that:

During the Fox and Friends appearance on Wednesday discussing Zarutska’s death, co-host Lawrence Jones said unhoused people with mental illness should either accept the publicly funded programs to help in their situation or be jailed.

“Involuntary lethal injection or something,” Kilmeade responded to Jones. “Just kill ’em.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition believes in the innate equality of the human person. It is not only wrong to suggest that homeless and mentally ill people should be killed, we oppose killing all people.

Kilmeade apologized by stating:

“I wrongly said they should get lethal injections” 

“I apologize for that extremely callous remark. I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina – and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.”

Kilmeade misses the point in his apology. His original statement suggests that some homeless and mentally ill people should be killed. His apology suggests that some of these people deserve our empathy and compassion.

Some people will suggest that Kilmeade didn't actually mean what he said. Whether or not that is true he said it and his comments have consequences.

Kilmeade's apology is clearly not enough. He needs to resign.

Our statement does not negate the concerns people have with the criminal justice system.

Canadian doctor supports euthanasia for children, poverty and more.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign our petition: We demand a review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practice (Link).

Dr Ellen Wiebe

James Reinl wrote an insightful article that was published by the Daily Mail on August 27, 2025 interviewing Ellen Wiebe, one of Canada's most prolific euthanasia doctors. In the interview Wiebe states that she supports euthanasia for children, poverty and more. Reinl reports:

She has been called 'Dr Death,' the 'High Priestess of euthanasia,' and dragged through courts for greenlighting controversial assisted suicides.

But Dr Ellen Wiebe – one of Canada's most prolific providers of state-sanctioned euthanasia – insists she is not evil.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail from her Vancouver home, the 73-year-old revealed she has overseen more than 400 lethal injections since Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016 – and still defends expanding access to children and even the poor.

Wiebe admitted to having done at least 400 euthanasia deaths in 2022. Since then she continues to refer to the 400 deaths but its likely more than 1000.

Reinl comments on Wiebe's support for euthanasia based on poverty:

Dr Wiebe admits she sometimes feels like a social worker, trying to untangle whether her patients are motivated by illness or destitution.

'In some situations, I will actually ask: 'If you could have better housing, if you could have better services, would you want to live longer?' And you know, some would say 'yes',' she said.

She has even lobbied local officials for housing and support, but often finds 'that service may not simply be available.'

Still, she argues poverty should not invalidate someone's right to die.

Wiebe also tells Reinl that children should have access to euthanasia.

Perhaps most controversially, Wiebe says Canada will doubtless extend assisted suicide to 'mature minors' – teenagers with terminal illnesses.

Canada's law currently limits MAiD to adults over 18, but a parliamentary committee has already recommended following the Netherlands in allowing access for some children.

'I'm surprised we haven't yet had a 17-year-old with terminal cancer insist on their rights,' said Wiebe.

'When it happens, a judge will agree — I have no question about that.'

Wiebe also supports extending euthanasia to people with mental illness and beyond. Reinl reports:

Despite the controversies, Wiebe is unapologetic, and says she expects Canada's MAiD program to grow further. 

Dr Wiebe is also known for several controversial euthanasia deaths.
Wiebe's liberal approach to MAiD has repeatedly landed her in hot water.

She has been accused of sneaking into a Jewish nursing home to euthanize a resident against the facility's rules.
She once performed MAiD on a 52-year-old psychiatric patient while he was on a day pass from a psychiatric hospital. 

Last year, a judge temporarily blocked her from euthanizing a woman with bipolar disorder after her partner claimed she was ineligible.

Critics say she pushes the boundaries of the law, with complaints, lawsuits, and headlines following in her wake. None have yet led to professional sanctions.

Previous articles about Dr Ellen Wiebe (Articles Link).

Canada Funds MAiD provider conference While Disabled Canadians Starve

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

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

I feel moved to comment on the Atlantic article, “Canada is Killing Itself.”

The piece outlines many grotesque consequences of Canada’s “MAiD” program. But, as a disabled person who has spent a lot of time chatting with indigent disabled Canadians on social media, the passage that I find particularly representative of the callousness and privilege underlying the broader “MAiD” movement is the description of a “MAiD provider” conference.

Canada gave 3.3 million dollars to CAMAP to develop a “MAiD curriculum” and funds CAMAP’s academic journal. Hence, the Canadian government presumably contributed funding to that conference, either directly or indirectly. The passage about the conference reads:

“The euthanasia conference was held at a Sheraton. Some 300 Canadian professionals, most of them clinicians, had arrived for the annual event. There were lunch buffets and complimentary tote bags; attendees could look forward to a Friday-night social outing, with a DJ, at an event space above Par-Tee Putt in downtown Vancouver.”

Yeah, ok, screw your posh conference, “MAiD providers.” How dare you nosh on a government-subsidized fruit plate while disabled Canadians who you help kill beg for a few dollars on X so that they can buy an apple.

This dichotomy is an excellent example of how much more the Canadian government values “choice” for the privileged than disabled people’s autonomy, well-being and lives. Canada is helping to fund fancy “MAiD provider” conferences while it refuses to appoint a disability policy director and institutes a difficult-to-access “disability benefit” that gives disabled Canadians six dollars a day.

Funding “MAiD provider conferences” while letting disabled people starve and die by assisted suicide is the shameful opposite of the autonomy, equity and compassion that the “MAiD” movement invokes in advertising its cause.

Our ableist, narcissistic world needs to get its priorities straight. It’s evil that Canada funds outings, catered lunches and DJs for “MAiD provider” conferences while it refuses to fund disabled people’s medical care, housing and food.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is concerned about euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

During a January 30, 2025 interview with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, on the John Bachman Now show, Bachman asked Premier Smith about her concerns with the increase in MAiD in Canada to almost 1 out of 20 deaths. Bachman suggested that to a lot of people the increase in assisted deaths in frightening. Premier Smith's comments on MAiD begin at the 6 minute point:

And it should be frightening.

One of the things that the federal government is allowing is the potential for people to seek MAiD because of mental illness. We've heard of people seeking MAiD because their poor and can't get on government supports. It's outragious.

The intention behind it was always that if death was reasonably foreseeable and imminent from a condition that you weren't going to recover from, like late stage cancer or something along those lines, that a person would have the choice. But it has broadened out to the point where its completely unreasonable.

We've resisted moving down that path. We are creating a separate oversight body to make sure that doctors have the oversight if they do make that determination, so that families can intervene in the event that somebody is just seeking it because they are having a bad patch in life. We don't want somebody feeling so desperate that they think that's the only answer.

We want people to recover, if they can and to get their lives back. So we are taking a little different approach on that.

On February 1, 2023, Alberta premier Danielle Smith objected to the expansion of euthanasia to include mental illness (link)

Alberta Health Services data states that there were 1116 reported assisted deaths in 2024, which was up by almost 15% from 977 in 2023, 836 in 2022 and 594 in 2021. 

Alberta has had the case of the 27-year-old autistic woman, who was approved and scheduled to die by euthanasia on February 1, 2024 until her father challenged the euthanasia approval in court. There was also a case of a Calgary man who couldn't get experimental treatment for cluster headaches but could get approved for euthanasia.

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario released a report from the Ontario MAiD Death review Committee outlining six representative stories of non-compliant euthanasia deaths in Ontario. The report indicated that there were at least 428 non-compliant Ontario euthanasia deaths from 2018 to 2023 with 25% of all euthanasia providing doctors, in Ontario, having at least one non-compliant death. We suspect that similar concerns exist with euthanasia in Alberta.

Alberta does not have a MAiD Death Review Committee therefore data about non-compliant euthanasia deaths in Alberta is unknown.

Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho is a Family Physician; Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Member of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee

Dr Coelho has written an excellent commentary on Canada's experience with euthanasia (MAiD) that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on January 8, 2025. 

Dr Coelho is commenting on Health Canada's Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying. Coelho writes:

Health Canada’s recently released Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2023 reveals that 15,343 individuals died by MAiD, 622 of them following Track 2. By the end of 2023, the cumulative number of MAiD deaths reached 60,000 – 4.7 per cent of all deaths nationally since the program was launched. The annual growth rate continues to rise significantly, at 15.8 per cent.

Regional reported trends highlight extreme increases in growth, with Quebec experiencing a 36.3 per cent increase, Ontario at 30.3 per cent, and British Columbia at 18.0 per cent. These provinces account for 85 per cent of all MAiD provisions. In Quebec, where only euthanasia is allowed, it accounted for more than 7 per cent of all deaths. Quebec’s government recently commissioned a study to better understand why so many people in the province are resorting to euthanasia.

Canada legalized MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) in June 2016 by creating an exemption in the Criminal Code for homicide or aiding suicide. Coelho mentions that in 2023 there were 15,343 MAiD deaths whereby 5 of the deaths were assisted suicide while the rest were euthanasia.

Some of the MAiD deaths were based on discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports and social care. Coelho explains:

Supporters of MAiD often cite autonomy and compassion as validations for the practice. However, as a society, we cannot ignore the troubling reality that, for many individuals, the desire for assisted death can often reflect systemic failures: discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports, and social care.

Even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which filed the Carter case that led to the 2015 decriminalization of physician-assisted suicide in Canada, has now expressed concerns about the misuse of MAiD. They acknowledge reports of individuals being offered MAiD in circumstances that might not meet the legal criteria, as well as cases where people may resort to MAiD due to intolerable social conditions, and have asserted that they will hold the government accountable.

Suffering was not necessarily related to physical suffering.

As the Health Canada report cites, the overall drivers of intolerable suffering include loneliness and isolation (21 per cent for Track 1 vs. 47 per cent for Track 2), emotional distress, anxiety, fear, or existential suffering (39 per cent for Track 1 vs. 35 per cent for Track 2) and a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers (45 per cent for Track 1 vs. 49 per cent for Track 2). It is deeply troubling that loneliness, the fear of being a burden, and general fear are leading people to choose death. All of these issues should be addressed with better care, not with the provision of death. When people lack timely access to adequate health care, housing, or proper support – or even simply genuine care and love – offering death as a “choice” is not compassionate, it can be a form of neglect.

Euthanasia in Canada is often presented as an option when the person is at their lowest. Coelho explains:

Consider patients in palliative care. Cancer patients, for instance, often face significant barriers to accessing mental health support and proper symptom management. How can a request for MAiD be free and informed when better support isn’t available? Alarmingly, Health Canada suggests that health care providers should consider proactively raising MAiD as an option, but this approach raises serious ethical concerns. Are we genuinely prioritizing care, or are we normalizing death as a default?

This tension illustrates how systemic neglect can muddy the waters of autonomy. When cases of euthanasia are documented for persons whose pain is poorly managed, or whose care is inadequate, is the decision to request MAiD truly autonomous? When feeling like a burden, or when loneliness or fear of prolonged suffering are the factors driving the decision, the choices are not made in true freedom but are borne of anguish and desperation, reflecting the reality of unmet needs. These dynamics demonstrate that suffering can distort autonomy and can turn MAiD into the result of systemic failures rather than an expression of true choice.

Euthanasia is not a type of medical treatment.

MAiD does not align with medicine’s core purpose and has been incoherently integrated into medical practice. As Harvey Chochinov and Joseph Fins argue, medicine is fundamentally about healing, restoration, and tailoring care to address specific conditions. In contrast, MAiD offers no pathway to healing; it ends life, removing the possibility of further care, closure, or recovery. Unlike standard medical practice, which relies on evidence-based guidelines and individualized decision-making to manage symptoms and diseases while minimizing harm, MAiD is legislatively mandated, lacks nuance and adaptability, and serves only to end the sufferer’s life.

This overemphasis on autonomy represents a troubling shift in medical ethics. Autonomous choice, when stripped of adequate support and resources, ceases to be a form of empowerment and instead becomes a hollow justification for abandonment and the exercise of privilege and power over consideration of the common good. By focusing on “choice” while failing to address the suffering that underpins it, MAiD shifts the medical profession’s role from healing to facilitating death.

The expansion of euthanasia affects the nature of medical treatment.

The expansion of MAiD – from individuals who are near the end of their lives to those with disabilities, mental illness (beginning in 2027), and likely soon for those lacking capacity – raises profound questions about how we define medical treatment. Unlike other procedures, performing euthanasia or assisted suicide does not mandate any specialized training, nor are there legislative safeguards ensuring that all of the less invasive or less risky treatments have been thoroughly tried first. This begs the question of whether we are shifting the focus of care from alleviating suffering to merely ending the lives of those who are suffering prematurely.

Engaging in this debate has revealed an interesting dynamic among experts. Mental health professionals often highlight the complexity of their field and the current impossibility of accurately determining whose suffering is truly irremediable. Many argue rightly that MAiD is not an appropriate response to mental illness and advocate for evidence-based care. Disability experts emphasize that their patients often face systemic barriers and unmet needs and that recovery takes time, suggesting that compassion lies in improving support, not offering death. Palliative care specialists stress that end-of-life suffering can be alleviated, provided the resources to provide skillful, holistic care are available, which allows patients and their loved ones to find closure and meaning in their final days. While physical pain can often be effectively managed with medication, the psychological aspects of suffering should be addressed through therapy. Furthermore, choosing death out of fear – whether to avoid future pain, suffering, or material hardships – should be met with compassion and improved support.

The overemphasis of autonomy displaces the core principles of medicine.

This shift from the balancing of ethical principles of medicine to an overemphasis on autonomy reveals a deeper issue: autonomy and choice can displace core principles of healing, patient safety, and alleviation of suffering. Fear, isolation, and a lack of sustained support can make MAiD seem like an appealing option – not because it is the best solution, but because better alternatives are either overlooked due to the limited knowledge or are unavailable and inaccessible.

The report indicates that Track 2 euthanasia deaths (euthanasia for people who are not dying) predominantly affects women and people living with poverty.

According to the Health Canada report, those receiving MAiD under Track 2 were predominantly women (58.5 per cent) and slightly younger than those receiving it via Track 1. Further, the report indicates that proportionally more women than men were living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods (both Tracks 1 and 2). The Health Canada report aims to reassure Canadians by stating that the higher rate of younger women receiving MAiD can simply be linked to, “overall population health trends where women experience longterm chronic illness, which can cause enduring suffering but would not typically make a person’s death reasonably foreseeable.” However, the report fails to mention international research that women are disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence, more likely to receive inadequate medical care, and twice as likely to attempt suicide as men. These women may feel trapped in their suffering, leading them to see euthanasia or assisted suicide as an escape when other supports or interventions are unavailable, effectively replacing suicide prevention efforts with assisted suicide.

Lastly, an unexplained 6.7 per cent of those who died under Track 2 had no fixed address, raising the possibility of housing insecurity, a concern that has recently been underscored in leaked discussions from MAiD practitioner forums. These documented issues highlight that euthanasia and assisted suicide risks preying on systemic neglect and the intersections of gender, poverty, and isolation – conditions that distort the notion of true choice.

The Health Canada euthanasia report seems to promote the position of the euthanasia lobby.

The Health Canada report reads at times like a defence of the MAiD regime, placing greater emphasis on reassuring the public than on sober and fulsome analysis. The report even concludes with what seems like an endorsement for Dying with Dignity’s (DWD) position in a BC court case, which aims to mandate MAiD in all health facilities. The report notes that “institutional objection to MAiD resulting in patient transfers is a fraught issue. Since the legalization of MAiD in 2016, several faith-based hospitals, long-term care facilities, and hospices in Canada have enacted policies to prohibit MAiD from taking place on their premises,” further noting that a relatively high proportion of transfers were made following institutional policies. However, their analysis fails to acknowledge that transfers from facilities with institutional policies are necessary to enable individuals with disabilities to choose care in MAiD-free safe spaces. Further, hospital transfers occur frequently and for a variety of reasons, including patients requiring specialized services. Framing this as a “fraught issue” seemingly reflects ideological bias.

The Health Canada report seems to support removing "safeguards" for euthanasia.

Several disability organizations, supported by the larger disability community, have launched a court challenge to try to limit MAiD. The organizations assert that Track 2 has resulted in premature deaths and an increase in discrimination and stigma towards people with disabilities across the country. While they are not challenging Track 1 in this case, they recognize that it too can pose significant problems for people with disabilities.

Health Canada suggests that even modest delays can interfere with a person’s ability to access MAiD, emphasizing how important it is to avoid hindrances for those seeking it. However, they equally fail to highlight that 41 cases were stopped because external pressures were identified that were driving patients’ requests. In this regard, the report misses a critical point: providers who take the time to deeply understand and address a patient’s suffering may be offering true medical care, even if the patient dies naturally. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, as universal solutions, is a simplistic, cost-effective approach that overlooks the many complexities and challenges that their broad legalization has created.

Coelho completes her commentary by calling for a truly compassionate response.

Compassion does not abandon people to their despair. It does not normalize death as a solution to poorly controlled pain, fear, poverty, loneliness, or inadequate care. It invests in palliative care, mental health services, social support, and community life to make life worth living.

If Canada continues down this path, we are de facto normalizing the idea that some lives are less valuable and less deserving of care and that certain types of people are better off dead. The promise of autonomy can be a front, masking systemic neglect while utilizing the language of choice. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not compassionate solutions if we have failed to meaningfully address the causes of suffering at its root. A compassionate society does not encourage its citizens to choose death simply because it has failed to help them live.

Previous articles by Ramona Coelho:

• Discrimination driven deaths. Analysing Ontario Coroner Reports on Euthanasia (Link). 
• Heart wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).