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).

(62%) of Canadians are concerned that socially and financially vulnerable will look to MAID based on inadequate health care.

6% of the respondents indicated that they knew a person who was offered MAiD (euthanasia) who had not requested it.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Angus Reid Institute in partnership with Cardus conducted an opinion poll of 1652 Canadians concerning MAiD (euthanasia). Similar to previous opinion polls, the current poll which was released on November 21, 2024 found that Canadians generally support access to MAiD (euthanasia) but have significant concerns with the application of the law.

The poll found that 63% of the respondents supported Canada's euthanasia law while 62% said that they worry about socially and financially vulnerable Canadians looking to MAID in lieu of adequate and quality health care.

Furthering the concerns is that people with disabilities are reporting barriers to accessing health care:

A majority (57%) of those living with disabilities which severely impact their day-to-day life have experienced some sort of barrier, including worse access to health care in general (31%), worse quality care (24%), difficulty finding a primary care doctor (21%), or inaccessible treatment or testing locations (12%).

The poll included 468 respondents who were healthcare workers. Among this group:

(45%) say they believe people living with disability receive poor or terrible care in their province.

The poll found that nearly 4 in 10 healthcare workers stated that Canadians with disabilities experience slower access to healthcare, a lower quality of care and are less likely to have their concerns taken seriously in the healthcare system.

The poll also found that almost 1 in 5 Canadians know someone who has died by MAiD (euthanasia) and 6% of the respondents indicated that they knew a person who was offered MAiD who had not requested it.

With instances of MAID increasing, the proportion of those who know a close friend or family member who received MAID has reached one-in-five (18%). This is higher among those older than 54 (24%) and those in Quebec (26%), the province which has seen the most medically assisted deaths since 2016. Exposure is close to evenly divided between close friends or family members.

Notably, six per cent of Canadians say that they had a close friend or family member who was offered MAID unsolicited, something opponents have been concerned about.

The 6% of respondents who stated that a friend or relative was offered euthanasia without asking for it, 37% stated that the person accepted the suggestion and died by euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has received many phone calls from people who were upset that healthcare professionals (often a hospital MAiD team) had asked them or a loved one if they wanted euthanasia. One person contacted me after being asked 5 times if they wanted euthanasia.

In June 2024, Heather Hancock, who lives with Cerebral Palsy, shared her story of being pressured at two Canadian hospitals to request MAiD (euthanasia).

Canada had approximately 15,280 euthanasia deaths in 2023 (Article Link).

Previous Angus Reid polls:

• The majority of Canadians oppose euthanasia for mental health (Link). 
• 28% of Canadians support euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
  
• The majority of Canadians say that religiously affiliated hospitals should not be forced to do euthanasia (Link). 
• Canadians oppose further expansions of (MAiD) euthanasia (Link).
  

Ontario: 25% of euthanasia providers may have violated the Criminal Code.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alexander Raikin

On November 12 I published a commentary on Alexander Raikin's research essay that was published in The New Atlantis that I titled: Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant (MAiD) euthanasia deaths. After publishing the article several people emailed me suggesting that compliant or non-compliant, all euthansia deaths involve the killing of a human being and are inherently wrong. I agree.

On November 18, Alexander Raikin's article: A quarter of all Ontario MAiD providers may have violated the Criminal Code. Does Anyone Care? was published by The Hub. Raikin's article is based on the same research that led to his earlier article, accept that his most recent article adds significant historical context to the issue.

Raikin begins his article by stating that Canada legalized (MAiD) euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada as an exception to the criminal code when it is done based on specificied circumstances, and outside of those circumstances these acts remain criminal acts. Raikin states:

In 2016, following a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Carter v. Canada, Justin Trudeau decriminalized culpable homicide and counselling or aiding suicide in the Criminal Code, only if done by a physician or a nurse practitioner and if each eligibility requirement for MAID is met. Otherwise, clinicians would not be immune through these exemptions in the Criminal Code.

Some of these requirements include having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, a voluntary request to die not because of external pressure, and the ability to give informed consent. Failure by a physician or a nurse practitioner to submit necessary information on a MAID provision—or failure to inform a pharmacist of the purpose of the MAID prescriptions or to follow provincial guidelines—is also punishable by a prison sentence. It means that a clinician who does not follow any of these rules faces serious criminal punishment.

Raikin points out that even CAMAP (The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers agrees with that statement. Their position statement:

“recognizes the need for oversight,” including the guiding principle that it “maintains the public trust and provides accountability for the delivery of MAID against the legislative framework and safeguards.”

Raikin points out that CAMAP lobbied the government to reduce oversight of Canada's euthanasia law.

Yet at the 2018 annual convention for CAMAP, the official summary of the proceedings also described how Quebec’s independent monitoring for assisted dying, Commission des soins de fin de vie, was too thorough: “Reviewing 43 percent of all MAID cases is considered harassment by providers.” CAMAP won. In the 2023 fiscal year, the independent monitoring agency in Quebec sent for further review only 4 percent of MAID cases; and in Ontario, the chief coroner of Ontario classified only 6 percent of MAID cases for full review.

In response Raikin points out that leading euthanasia doctors claim that there is nothing to worry about. Stefanie Green, the past president of the CAMAP said:

“If I break the rules anywhere, there’s criminal liability sitting in the back of my head,”

While Chantal Perrot recently told The Guardian that:

“I have never heard of a case of the MAID criteria being applied wrongly or abusively, or someone who has received MAID who should not have. I’ve heard of none reported by any of the coroner’s offices or any of their provincial oversight groups.”

In response, Raikin published the August 2023 statement by Michel Bureau, the head of Quebec’s independent monitoring board who stated that MAID cases in Quebec 

“are approaching the limits of the law.” 

Raikin also reminds the readers that in 2018, Dirk Huyer, the Chief Coroner of Ontario indicated that there was:

“a pattern of non-compliance, a pattern of not following legislation, a pattern of not following regulation.”

Raikin also points out that a study conducted by Huyer on the first 100 euthanasia deaths in Ontario indicated that from the inception of the law that there was a pattern of non-compliance.

Raikin explains that Huyer told a group of Nurse Practitioners in 2018 that there were

“some…compliance concerns with both the Criminal Code and regulatory body policy expectations, some of which have recurred over time.”

Raikin points out how non-compliance in Ontario has only worsened. The Ontario Chief Coroner (Huyer) pointed out that:

In 2020, his office identified 76 “issues with compliance,” and in 2024 his office identified 428 “issues with compliance.”

Raikin states that the recent report of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee found:

A quarter of all Ontario euthanasia providers received at least one compliance issue in 2023, though not a single provider was reported to the police, not even the provider who administered a death that the chief coroner described as “a blatant situation” where “the family and the deceased person suffered tremendously.”

Raikin concludes his article by stating:

It is difficult to understand how these accusations of non-compliance with MAID legislation have remained hidden for so long by all the parties responsible. No provincial report, no coroner statement, not even a leak from a concerned MAID provider or assessor. On the provincial subreddit for Ontario, my article was banned for spouting “false information with the intent to mislead.” It is as good an answer as any: compliance concerns with the Criminal Code are happening, but it seems no one cares.

Previous articles on this topic:

• Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Link).
• Euthanasia is being used to kill people in poverty, isolation and social suffering (Link).
• Ontario MAiD Death Review stories. Do you have a (MAiD) death story (Link).
• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
• Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report. Poor at risk of coercion (Link).
• Ontario Chief Coroner report. Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link).

Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime.

This article was published in the Scotland Herald on November 12, 2024 titled: Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's Assisted Dying regime.

By Dr Ramona Coelho

Twenty years ago, just out of medical school, I couldn’t have imagined that vulnerable patients might one day feel their suffering was so poorly dealt with that they'd ask their doctor to end their lives. Since our country, Canada, legalised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, we have seen over 60,000 MAiD deaths by 2023, with exponential yearly growth rates. Quebec’s recent report reveals that their MAiD annual death rate has surpassed 7%, and they can’t even assess the quality of palliative care provided.

The Canada I grew up in valued dignity and protected the vulnerable. Now, inadequate care and weak safeguards are pushing Canadians with disabilities toward assisted death. A recent report from an Ontario government committee I sit on confirms the warnings of Canadian and United Nations human rights experts: people are choosing death because they lack essential supports and services.

Take the report’s review of a man in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. Isolated, unemployed, and struggling with mental illness and addiction, he depended on family for housing and financial support.

Rather than receiving care for his mental health, a psychiatrist asked if he knew about MAiD. In the end, a MAiD provider personally drove him to the location where he ended his life — without input from his family, despite their deep concerns. Canada claims to have a social and health safety net, but in his case, was he not pushed toward death?

There are countless other stories like his — stories revealed in reports, the media, and those that I now frequently encounter first hand. Every time I hear them, I’m reminded that what was meant to be an exceptional option has come at an unacceptable cost.

I see patients who are trapped in a system that doesn’t care enough for them. For many, MAiD is the only “compassionate” option when palliative care, mental health support, and basic social services are inaccessible.

These stories are heart-wrenching, and they are far from rare. The report reviews the case of a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities who applied for MAiD because she couldn’t find housing that met her medical needs. She didn’t want to die — she wanted to live in a way that felt safe and supported. But when faced with few options, death seemed to be the only choice.

I care for many elderly and disabled patients, those battling loneliness, isolation, and the quiet anguish of feeling like a burden due to societal neglect. In Canada, MAiD is routinely raised to the elderly and disabled as a care option — sometimes even before palliative care is explored.

I recall a conversation with a man who felt he was no longer needed, that his family would be better off financially if he chose MAiD. I’ve also seen families pressuring elderly relatives, concerned about the financial burden of supporting them. It breaks my heart that, in Canada today, death can seem easier to arrange than creating a safe supportive community where everyone feels valued and connected.

As I prepare to testify in Scotland, I think of the patients I’ve seen swept along by a system that no longer protects them.

In 2016, MAiD was meant for those at the end of life, with reassurances that it would never be offered as a "solution" for social suffering. But those promises have crumbled, replaced by an increasing push for accessibility.

Today, in Ontario, most patients choosing MAiD who are not dying come from marginalised, poor backgrounds. They are younger, with a higher percentage being women (61%). These groups are more vulnerable, often suffering from social deprivation that could be treated with the right support, yet MAiD is offered as a quicker option than suicide prevention and care.

Worryingly, MAiD recipients often lack adequate mental health and disability supports. In Ontario, only 8.6% of those not dying who chose MAiD were offered housing support, and only 6% were offered income support. Those not dying but accessing MAiD are less likely to list an immediate family member as their next of kin — often naming a friend, lawyer, or healthcare provider instead, signalling a stark lack of social support.

The situation continues to worsen. When life’s difficulties become unbearable, MAiD is now presented as an answer, rather than addressing the root causes of despair. How have we, as a society, reached a point where death can sometimes be offered more easily and as a less costly solution than investing in social and mental health services, things that make life worthwhile?

Individual autonomy has been used as an argument to blow open access to MAiD. Mental illness as a sole medical condition to access MAiD will be allowed in 2027, and federal consultations about MAiD advance directives are currently underway.

Quebec has taken matters further, breaking the criminal code by allowing advance directives for MAiD, simply requesting non-prosecution for offenders. Our federal joint parliamentary committee on MAiD has recommended MAiD for children deemed capable of making their own healthcare decisions.

Look at Canada today and ask if this is the reality you want for your own people. Our experiences show that the road to legalising assisted dying is a slippery one. It starts with promises of compassion that have led to a system where some patients feel pushed toward death. This is the opposite of autonomy and choice – it is desperation and structural coercion to die. I would not wish this reality upon any nation.

If Scotland truly wants to offer compassion, it should strengthen palliative care and provide social support that help people live with dignity. Compassion is not offering death to those who feel like burdens or are lonely (which are highly cited reasons for choosing MAiD in Canada) — it’s lifting that burden by creating a society where people feel valued, and every person feels supported and safe.

Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho.

• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
• Canada's assisted dying regime should not be expanded to include children (Link).
• Euthanasia for those with mental illness should not be on the table (Link).

Dr Ramona Coelho is a family physician whose practice largely serves marginalised persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She presented evidence to Holyrood on Liam McArthur MSP's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

Euthanasia is being used to kill people in poverty, isolation and social suffering.

What real choice does a person have who’s already suffering from mental illness, doesn’t have caring people nearby, isn’t getting adequate medical attention and social supports and may already be contemplating suicide?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Article: Ontario MAiD Death Review Stories. Do you have a MAiD death story? (Link).

Andrew Phillips, a staff columnist with the Toronto Star wrote an excellent opinion article titled: Assisted suicide is being used to relieve people of poverty, isolation and social suffering. This is not OK. Yes this article published in the Toronto Star.

Phillips is writing about the report issued by the Ontario chief coroner’s office on how medical assistance in dying (MAID) is being carried out in this province. Phillips refers to two of the six cases that were outlined in the report.

Mr. A, “a male in his 40s,” was suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. He also had “a history of mental illness, previous episodes of suicidality, and ongoing alcohol and opioid misuse.” No one offered him treatment for his addictions, but a psychiatrist gave him information about MAID. He was approved for death under what’s known as “Track 2” — cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable. A MAID provider personally drove him to the place where he was given an assisted death.

Mr. B, “a male in his late 40s,” was suffering from severe ulcers. He also “presented with multiple mental illnesses, namely depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type 2. He had chronic suicidal ideations” — and indeed had attempted suicide a year earlier. Mr. B also applied under Track 2 and became one of 116 Ontarians to die that way last year.

Phillips then writes:

I spell out those details because the two recent reports on MAID from Ontario’s chief coroner are like that: detailed, clinical, dispassionate. They’re the opposite of sensational, at least in style.

But what they reveal ought to be shocking. Some patients are being euthanized while suffering from untreated mental illnesses and addictions. They’re more likely to come from poor areas (those with “high levels of marginalization,” as the reports put it) and be suffering from inadequate housing, a lack of social supports and simple loneliness.

Phillips, who supports euthanasia, states that 2.6% of the 4644 Ontario euthanasia deaths in 2023 were Track 2 deaths, meaning, the person wasn't terminally ill. Phillips then states:

But somehow we’ve turned a system that Canadians thought was supposed to spare people in the last stages of life from needless pain and suffering (a laudable goal, and one I share), to a system in which some people are being nudged toward death as a way to escape poverty, isolation and social suffering.

Phillips states that some members of the Ontario MAiD Death Review committee are not bothered by the cases outlined in the report. Philips writes:

they appear to think they are rare outliers and what should matter above all is a person’s individual autonomy — “my death, my choice.”

Phillips responds by stating:

What real choice does a person have who’s already suffering from mental illness, doesn’t have caring people nearby, isn’t getting adequate medical attention and social supports and may already be contemplating suicide?

Dr Sonu Gaind

Psychiatrist, Dr Sonu Gaind, is then interviewed by Phillips:

Dr. Sonu Gaind, a psychiatrist who’s deeply involved in the issue, says all this shouldn’t be surprising because Canada’s MAID system has been shaped by advocates wedded to the “right to die” mantra of individual choice. They’re constantly pressing to expand the criteria for MAID to include more and more people, leading to the slippery slope that opponents of assisted death warned of years ago.

Gaind notes some advocates are dismissing the troubling cases cited in the coroners’ reports because, they say, marginalized people already die at a higher rate than others so it should come as no surprise that more of them die from MAID as well. “Claiming that state-facilitated death fuelled by social deprivation is acceptable since more marginalized people die from social deprivation and structural inequities anyway is indistinguishable from eugenics,” he writes in the Conversation.

“My death, my choice” sounds good but it doesn’t let us off the hook as a society. We have a decision to make: do we ensure vulnerable, suffering people have the support they need to live decently? Or do we collectively decide that’s too complicated and expensive and usher them gently towards an early death?

Previous articles on this topic:

• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia for post Covid-19 syndrome (Link).
• Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report - Poor at risk of coercion (Link).
• Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link).

Ontario MAiD Death Review stories. Do you have a (MAiD) death story?

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death?

Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario?
Why has there been no medical license suspensions? 

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The recent Ontario MAiD Death Review that released by the Chief Coroner of Ontario in conjunction with the Review Committee outlines several Ontario euthanasia stories.

According to the Review Committee, these euthanasia stories were not the only stories but they were representative of concerns with the euthanasia deaths in Ontario.

The purpose of this article is to outline the stories in the Ontario MAiD Death Review report and help other people with their concerning euthanasia cases.

Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee report.

Case 1: Complex Medical Condition

Mr. A was a male in his late 40s who experienced suffering and functional decline following three vaccinations for SARS-Cov-2. He received multiple expert consultations, with extensive clinical testing completed without determinate diagnostic results. Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed. He had a significant mental health history, including depression and trauma experiences. While navigating his physical symptoms, Mr. A was admitted to hospital with intrusive thoughts of dying. Psychiatrists presented concerns of an adjustment disorder, depression with possible psychotic symptoms, and illness anxiety/somatic symptom disorder. During a second occurrence of suicidal ideation, Mr. A was involuntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, post-traumatic stress disorder was thought to be significantly contributing to his symptoms. He received inpatient psychiatric treatment and care through a specialist team. He was also diagnosed with cluster B and C personality traits.

The MAiD assessors opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

No pathological findings were found at the time of post-mortem examination. The cause of death following post-mortem examination was provided as post COVID-19 vaccination somatic symptom disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder.

In this case the person who died by euthanasia had no pathological findings that were found at the time of post-mortem examination. In other words he was otherwise healthy. Whether his health issues were related to psychological issues or some other health concern, Mr. A was killed without having a known medical condition.

Case 2: Concurrent Mental Illnesses

Mr. B was a male in his late 40s. He was diagnosed with longstanding severe gastric and duodenal ulcers with unknown etiology. Mr. B concurrently presented with multiple mental illnesses, namely depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type 2. He had chronic suicidal ideations.

A year prior to the provision of MAiD, Mr. B attempted suicide with a descent from a height. He experienced polytrauma and required extensive medical and surgical management and rehabilitation. Psychiatry was involved in the MAiD assessment process. Mr. B was deemed by psychiatry to be capable of participating in the MAiD process, and the suicide attempt was determined to be a reflection of profound existential suffering. A psychiatrist determined that neither psychiatric illness nor suicidal ideations were facilitating the request for MAiD.

Mr. B may be experiencing suicidal ideation and yet psychiatry found him capable of participating in MAiD and determined that his previous suicide attempt and existential suffering were not leading him to ask for death by MAiD. Since a person with psychiatric concerns can die by euthanasia, in Canada, if they have another health condition, this case shows how it is impossible to determine whether the psychiatric condition is driving the request to die, or not.

Case 3: Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder

Mr. C was an older male in his 80s, who experienced chronic back pain (15 years) due to spinal stenosis and post-surgical adhesive arachnoiditis. He was followed by a specialist pain clinic. Mr. C was also diagnosed by a psychiatrist with an adjustment disorder leading up to his request for MAiD. He declined further pharmacological interventions for same. The psychiatrist determined that this approach was in-keeping with an informed decision. Mr. C’s adjustment disorder was mainly influenced by irremediable chronic pain, and less likely to be responsive to pharmacologic intervention.

Mr. C needed support related to his adjustment disorder and he required relief from chronic pain. Some members of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee suggested that a 90-day waiting period was insufficient in this case because Mr. C needed a time to adjust to his condition. Mr. C did not need to be killed.

Case 4: Social Vulnerability

Mr. A was a male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. He received extensive treatment for this illness. It was reported that partly due to the course of his illness, Mr. A did not have an active social network: he could not maintain employment, he found personal relationships difficult to sustain, and he was dependent on family for housing and financial support. As a result, Mr. A lived with reduced social supports. He had declined multiple social support programs and psychosocial services.

Mr. A had a history of mental illness, previous episodes of suicidality, and on-going alcohol and opioid misuse. He lost his driver’s license secondary to his addictions. During a psychiatry assessment, the psychiatrist asked him if he was aware of MAiD and presented information on the option. While Mr. A was believed to have maintained decisional capability, his substance use was not explored in the MAiD assessments, and he was not offered addiction treatments.

During the MAiD process, there was no documented input from Mr. A’s family, nor a statement about why there was no engagement with family. The MAiD provider documented that the family had concerns about his request for MAiD.

The MAiD provider personally transported Mr. A in their vehicle to an external location for the provision of MAiD.

The MAiD Death Review Committee expressed concerns related to Mr. A and his lack of social connections, his family not supporting the death decision and his addiction and mental health problems.

Mr. A was killed without being offered an alternative to live. Even the fact that the MAiD provider gave Mr. A a ride to his death opens the question as to whether Mr. A was killed due to his request or based on the MAiD providers convictions.

Case 5: Housing Vulnerability

Ms. B was a female in her 50s with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS). She had a history of psychiatric hospital care for depression, anxiety, suicidality, and post-traumatic stress disorder, related to childhood trauma.

Ms. B had difficulty securing housing that met her medical needs. After years of attempts to secure appropriate housing, the Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling to allocate funds to renovate her apartment. These renovations did not satisfactorily address her MCSS symptoms. A remaining option presented was to live in a small hypoallergenic space (i.e., a bubble). As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCSS, Ms. B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD.

It is safe to conclude that Ms. B is dead because she was not provided suitable housing. Housing is a serious problem in Ontario but in this case the lack of affordable suitable housing resulted in the death of Ms. B.

Case 6: Disability

Mr. C was a male in his 40s living with quadriplegia following a motor vehicle collision. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to vulnerability in his medical journey (e.g., social isolation). Mr. C received rehabilitation without physical or functional gains. Due to his complex medical conditions, returning home with supports was not feasible.

The MAiD assessors considered his death non-reasonably foreseeable, thereby proceeding with Track 2 safeguards. However, one of the MAiD assessors considered the 90-day assessment period to be a “waiting period” and documented the possibility of “reducing the timeline should his natural death become reasonably foreseeable” (e.g., untreated septicemia).

Mr. C was separated from his family while receiving on-going complex continuing care. He was distressed about perceived limits of maintaining an ongoing relationship with his young children. Mr. C was a member of a racialized and religious community, with associated challenges with acceptance of MAiD.

Mr. C is the prime example on how one's disability can lead to their death by euthanasia. Mr. C needed an adjustment period to come to accept his new life with a disability. It is normal for an able-bodied person to grieve and feel that their life lacks meaning and hope after a serious accident that led to a serious disability.

Further to that Mr. C was living with social isolation since he was now separated from his family. If care-givers provided him the opportunity to re-intergrate into his family/home and/or provided a positive peer support to encourage him to adjust to his disability, then he would likely be alive today.

Mr. C. didn't need death, he needed an opportunity to live.

It is important to restate that the six cases that were outlined in the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee Report were representative of cases, not the only cases. 

These cases were based on six areas of concern: Complex Medical Condition, Concurrent Mental Illnesses, Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder, Social Vulnerability, Housing Vulnerability, Disability.

Some of these themes were present within more than one of the cases, especially concerns around disability, mental health (psychiatric conditions) and social vulnerability.

The greatest question related to these cases is: Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario and/or why has there been no medical license suspensions?

These cases have been discussed after the person died. Clearly there is a problem with the death approval system. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because these acts result in the killing of a person. The current approval system enables two doctors or nurse practitioners to approve a death and carry out the killing. There is no committee or “third-party” to ensure that there is effective oversight before a person is killed. You can’t bring any of the 6 people featured in these case back from the dead.

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death? Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1). 

The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law, admits abuse of the law

"In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Cameron Henderson reported for The Telegraph on October 26 that the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) admits that Canada's euthanasia is being abused. It was the BCCLA that carried the Carter case that legalized euthanasia in Canada to the Supreme Court. According to Henderson:

Assisted dying is being abused in Canada with doctors coercing patients into ending their lives, members of the group who helped to legalise it have admitted.

Henderson reports that:

The Telegraph can now reveal that members of the British Columbia Civil liberties Association (BCCLA), the group that spearheaded efforts to legalise assisted dying, have privately raised fears the practice is being “abused”.

Staff members also fear disabled people in Canada are being coerced by doctors into choosing to end their lives.

Henderson's report is published one week after the Chief Coroner of Ontario pubished a review of Ontario's experience with euthanasia which indicated that:

those on lower incomes who were offered the scheme were more likely to opt for it.

Henderson uncovers the information from a leaked footage from a video call last year between BCCLA staff and a Canadian disabled patients’ group.

In the footage a BCCLA employee admits that:

“we are seeing MAiD being abused”.

Henderson further reports that:

In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss.

On the same call, it was claimed some medical colleges in Canada had been advising against referring to MAiD on patients’ long-form death certificates, in a move which could distort the true numbers of people using it.

Some BCCLA staff members feel very uncomfortable with Canada's euthanasia law. Henderson writes:

One staff member admitted feeling “very uncomfortable” about the group’s previous campaigning on assisted suicide.

Speaking on the call, one of the two current BCCLA employees said: “It is the social and material aspect of [patients] disability and how that isn’t supported and how that’s treated in the community that’s creating intolerable conditions.

“In my view, that’s not proper,” they said, adding that healthcare providers should not raise the subject of MAiD with patients as “it’s far too easy for that to become coercive”.

In a separate voicemail message shared with The Telegraph, another alleged employee voiced regret about the campaigning group’s past agenda and spoke of trying to formulate a new policy that “distances the BCCLA from its past work”.

Henderson reports that the Joseph Arvay, for the BCCLA, argued before the courts in the Carter case that:

the risk of people unnecessarily ending their lives through an assisted dying scheme was negligible.

The euthanasia review from the Chief Coroner of Ontario of the euthanasia law was published last week. Henderson reports:

Yet fast-forward eight years, and the first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, revealed last week by The Telegraph, found vulnerable people faced “potential coercion” and “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

According to the data, disproportionate numbers of people who ended their lives through assisted dying when they were not terminally ill – 29 per cent – came from Ontario’s poorest areas.

That compares with 20 per cent of the province’s general population living in the most deprived communities.

The Telegraph is reporting on Canada's experience with euthanasia as the UK parliament is scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize assisted suicide on November 29.

Canada's euthanasia horrors are accelerating.

This article was published by the National Review online on October 24, 2024.

Wesley and Alex last year.

By Wesley J Smith

The horrors unleashed by Canada’s legalizing euthanasia are growing increasingly clear. Case after case of vulnerable people being killed instead of cared for have now been reported. More than 15,000 Canadians are euthanized annually. Some are even asking to die because they can’t access proper care in Canada’s socialized system, or out of loneliness as much as illness. One Canadian death doctor admitted to killing more than 400 people.

A medical association has even urged doctors to suggest euthanasia to their qualified patients! Indeed, the push for euthanasia can apparently become quite aggressive at times, including just before cancer surgeries. From the National Post story:

The Nova Scotia woman was steeling herself for major surgery, a mastectomy for breast cancer, when an unfamiliar doctor ran through a series of pre-operative questions: What was her medical history? What medications does she regularly take? Any allergies? Was she aware of medical assistance in dying?

Fifteen months later, before a second mastectomy, “it happened again,” the woman said. Different doctor, same inquiry. “In the list of questions about your life and your past and how are you treating these things was, ‘Hey, (MAID) is a thing that exists,’” she said.

“It was upsetting. Not because I thought they were trying to kill me. I was shocked that it happens. I was like, ‘Again? This happened again ?’”

The woman, 51, requested anonymity because she lives in a small area with a limited number of doctors. She believes euthanasia was raised as “I was literally on my way into surgery” not because of breast cancer but because of her long history with autoimmune and other disorders that, theoretically, would make her eligible for MAID.

And yet, the beat goes on.

It isn’t as if the truth isn’t coming out. A recent official report by the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario contains many disturbing conclusions that should — but won’t — derail the euthanasia train. For example, a mentally disturbed, suicidal man was euthanized because doctors decided he had a bad reaction to Covid vaccines. From the Vancouver Sun story (my emphasis):

Identified as “Mr. A,” the man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2. He also suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders, and, “while navigating his physical symptoms,” was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, with thoughts of suicide.

“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” according to the report. However, his MAID assessors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

There were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, though people’s experiences can’t be discounted just because medicine can’t find what’s wrong with them.

In other words, there is a good chance that the poor man was mentally ill and not physically sick.

The report also highlights that some poor people were euthanized because of social isolation or for fear of becoming homeless. From the AP report:

AP’s investigation found doctors and nurses privately struggling with euthanasia requests from vulnerable people whose suffering might be addressed by money, social connections or adequate housing. Providers expressed deep discomfort with ending the lives of vulnerable people whose deaths were avoidable, even if they met the criteria in Canada’s euthanasia system, known nationally as MAiD, for medical assistance in dying.

Here is one of the examples:

Another case detailed Ms. B, a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, with a history of mental illness including suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was socially isolated and asked to die largely because she could not get proper housing, according to the report.

Committee members couldn’t agree whether her death was justified; some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia. Others argued that “social needs may be considered irremediable” if other options have been explored.

At this point, it is worth recalling that euthanasia legalization changes the general morality of society and its respect for life in very disturbing ways. For example, a poll taken last year in Canada found that 27 percent of Canadians 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. Good grief!

But good on the mainstream media for finally covering these abuses. Perhaps that is why the Welsh parliament just rejected the legalization of assisted suicide and Delaware’s Democratic governor recently vetoed a legalization bill.

Americans may shrug and note that our assisted-suicide states have not gone that far, to which I would add the word “yet.” Several states have already liberalized their suicide-facilitation criteria. And, I would argue, the pace of the expansion has been slower here only because Americans have not fully swallowed the hemlock.

If we ever get to the point that the masses support turning homicide into a medical “treatment,” as have our northern neighbors, we will go down the same dark death road. After all, Canadians are our closest cultural cousins.

Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1).

Janet Eastman has written an excellent commentary on the report of the Ontario Chief Coroner concerning the experience with euthanasia in Ontario, Canada's largest province. Eastman's article was published in The Telegraph on October 17, 2024. 

Eastman focuses on the Coroner's report in relation to the upcoming assisted dying debate in the UK. Eastman writes:

Assisted dying is used by patients in Canada because they are poor and lack housing, a major report has found.

The first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, which has been obtained by the Telegraph, found vulnerable people face “potential coercion” or “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

Sixteen experts across medicine, nursing and law identified people whose lives may have been wrongly terminated at the hands of the state, where the action is called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).

It comes after Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, introduced her private member’s Bill to legalise the practice for terminally ill patients on Wednesday, saying it “contains robust protections”.

Eastman then explains some of the concerning stories from the Ontario Coroner's report:

In one example identified in the report, a MAiD practitioner drove a 40-year-old addict to his death after his psychiatrist suggested assisted dying as an option.

Using their own car to drive the patient to an external location to die by assisted dying “may have created pressure, and gave rise to a perception of hastening a person towards death”, the report found.

On another occasion, a man in his forties who had been “involuntarily hospitalised” on mental health grounds died by assisted dying after he became convinced he had been injured by the Covid-19 vaccination. A post-mortem later found “no pathological findings”.

Elsewhere in the report, one man who had tried to jump to his death the previous year, who presented with stomach ulcers, narcissistic personality disorder and chronic suicidal ideation, was allowed to die.

Eastman reports that: One of the doctors on the committee warned that “the UK should not assume it will manage this better or avoid potential pitfalls”

Eastman then interview Dr Ramona Coelho who is one of the members of the Coroner's committee and a family medicine practitioner based on London Ontario who said:

“With the legalisation of MAiD, real lives are at stake and the dangers of a slippery slope are very real.”

“When Canada legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia under MAiD in 2016, Canadians believed it was intended to be a rare, last-resort measure, reserved for consenting adults enduring intolerable suffering at the end of life.

“However, lobbying efforts have steadily pushed for broader access and eligibility.”

 Coehlo offers a warning to British legislators:

“British legislators have to consider how easily assisted dying can be expanded, how easily abuses can go undetected.”

Eastman outlines more concerns from the report:

The MAiD Death Review Committee member said: “This worrisome finding suggests that MAiD could be the option of least resistance and be used to end lives when social policies have failed them.”

A 50-year-old depressed woman, dubbed Ms B, was allowed an assisted death because the state could not find housing that “satisfactorily” addressed the symptoms of her multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS) in one case.

“As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCS, Ms B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD,” it said.

Some committee members “cautioned that a social issue – housing – was at the forefront of this request, not in keeping with a medical condition”. They felt that “MAiD is not a solution for all society and policy failures, furthering social injustices”.

The report also raised concerns about the case of 40-year-old addict with inflammatory bowel disease who died by assisted dying after “a psychiatrist asked him if he was aware of MAiD and presented information on the option”.

Evidence also suggested that Canadian patients could be incentivised to refuse medical treatment and make themselves more ill in order to access the practice.

Dr Coelho emphasized the case of a quadriplegic patient:

Dr Coelho pointed to a case in which a quadriplegic patient was told by one MAiD examiner that the 90-day assessment period prior to his assisted death could be “reduced” if he developed “untreated septicemia”, leading him to refuse treatment.

Eastman interviewed Kim Leadbeater (MP) and Lord Falconer who argued that, if legalized, British assisted suicide legislation will not be extended. But Alex Ruck Keene KC, the leading capacity barrister in the UK disagreed

Alex Ruck Keene KC, the leading capacity barrister, disagreed and said: 

it would be “quite possible to see how the courts would be willing to entertain discrimination-based challenges to the limits she said will be in the legislation because it will not be a question of whether assisted dying should be legal, which the courts have said is for Parliament, but rather to whom it should be available.”

Once legalized, assisted dying legislation will inevitably be extended. If legalized, the debate about whether it's OK to kill ends with a new debate beginning that concerns whether the restrictions are justified and equitable. Further to that, a new debate begins concerning who can kill and for what reasons.