Spain court rules: Families can challenge euthanasia approvals.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Noelia Castillo

An article by Alex Trelinski that was published by The Olive Press in Spain reported that on June 24, 2026 the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that families can legally challenge a euthanasia approval.

Trelinski reported that following the euthanasia death of Noelia Castillo, 25 that the Supreme Court decided with a 23 to 9 vote that parents can challenge a euthanasia approval of a family member. The report stated that:

In its ruling, the Supreme Court specifies that those who appeal the granting of euthanasia must be part of the applicant’s closest living circle.

They must possess, according to the ruling, ‘a sufficient capacity for knowledge and empathy with them to be able, if necessary, to detect possible flaws in the understanding and comprehension of the situation in which the applicant finds themselves’.

The court says they can challenge a decision when they demonstrate a special affective closeness with the person requesting euthanasia and provide a reasonable indication of proof over a possible breach of legal guarantees.

The Spanish Supreme Court has enabled some effective oversight of the law, as close family members will have the insight and relationship to question decisions by doctors when the approve the killing of a close family member.

The Spanish Supreme Court decision grants rights to Spanish family members that does not exist in Canada.

In September 2020 a Taryn Grant reported for CBC News Nova Scotia that a man who has received conflicting assessments for MAiD (euthanasia) and whose wife of 48 years says is delusional about his medical condition, can go ahead and die by euthanasia. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) enabled the plaintiff (wife) to challenge her husband's euthanasia approval. Grant reported:

A Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge has upheld a lower court decision that effectively allows a man to go ahead with a medically assisted death, in spite of his wife's efforts to stop him.

The 83-year-old man from Bridgewater, N.S., was assessed by physicians and approved for medical assistance in dying (MAID) earlier this year, but his wife, Katherine, 82, filed for an injunction with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, forcing him to cancel his plans.

In early 2024 there was a case in Calgary AB concerning a 27-year-old autistic woman who lived with her family and had been approved for death by euthanasia. Her father challenged the approval to kill his daughter and claimed that, based on the law, she does not qualify to be killed by euthanasia.

CBC News reported on March 12, 2024 on the Calgary court case that the father stated that his daughter did not have a medical condition that qualified, under the law, and yet his daughter had already been approved for death by lethal poison.

CBC News reporter, Meghan Grant reported on March 25, 2024 that Justice Feasby ruled that the 27-year-old daughter can die by euthanasia despite her father's concerns. Justice Feasby withdrew the temporary injunction that prevented the woman from dying by euthanasia but maintained a 30 day stay of the injunction, which gave the father time to appeal the decision.

On April 2, 2024, Kevin Martin reported for the Calgary Herald that the father of the 27-year-old autistic woman appealed the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 8, Justice Anne Kirker ordered a stay on the injunction to prevent the death of the 27-year-old autistic woman until after the appeal was heard. The date of the appeal is not known but will likely be heard in October.

The EPC sought and received intervention standing in the case, but the appeal was never heard.

The EPC has been contacted by many family members who are concerned about the euthanasia approval or death of a loved one. Currently there is no legal precedent in Canada t0 enable families members to challenge a euthanasia death approval.

It is only just to enable close family members to challenge a approvals for euthanasia based on a clear understanding of that person's physical and mental health.

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. 

Reduction in home care for people with disabilities in Québec

By Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM and a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition board member.

Odile Marcotte

The May 28 edition of the Le Devoir newspaper featured the story of Benjamin Leclair, a former wakeboarding champion who is now a tetraplegic. The local health board authority, known by the acronym CISSSMO, has recently reduced to 56 hours the number of hours allocated to Mr. Leclair's home care, arguing that this number of hours is more in line with its criteria ("grid") for allocating home care time to patients. Mr. Leclair's social worker explained to him that the health network, now managed by Santé Québec, was under pressure to save money. Actually CISSSMO claims that it is offering services to more patients than before (2335 in 2026 versus 2314 in 2025), and the number of service hours had to be reduced for some patients.

Mr. Leclair is not the only person in this situation: according to Hugo Vaillancourt, director of Ex aequo, people with disabilities are made to feel guilty when they ask for resources such as home care. Eventually the person has to rely on a caregiver, such as a spouse, who has not always undergone health care training. For instance, Aurélie, Benjamin Leclair's partner, had to quit her job to take care of him but is not trained to help him with his pressure sores, which he are likely to develop since he does not have anyone to move him in his bed during the night. Walter Zelaya, director of Moelle épinière et motricité Québec, observes that home care support is systematically reduced when persons with disabilities move in with somebody.

What does all this have to do with euthanasia? 

We remember with sadness the case of Jean Truchon, who lived with a disability similar to that of Mr. Leclair. Truchon could not obtain enough services from the health system, and was finally euthanized after having "won" the Truchon-Gladu challenge to the then euthanasia law. 

In Truchon, Judge Christine Beaudoin ruled that the end-of-life requirement for obtaining euthanasia was unconstitutional. The Canadian and Quebec governments did not appeal the Truchon decision resulting in the Canadian government modifying the law so that people such as Mr. Truchon and possibly Mr. Leclair could be euthanized without being terminally ill. 

Canada's two-track euthanasia law has Track 1 for persons with a terminal condition and Track 2 for persons living with a grievous and irremediable medical condition. Track 2 euthanasia has been condemned by the UN Committee on Disability Rights: see the excellent press release by Dr. Heidi Janz and Jonathan Marchand here (https://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/endoflife/Media-Release-29Jan2020).

More articles on euthanasia for people with disabilities in Canada:

• Canadian government ignores UN scrutiny over euthanasia law (Read).
• United Nations Committee directs Canada to repeal Track 2 euthanasia deaths (Read).
• How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link).
• Shouldn't care come before euthanasia? (Link). 
• The International disability rights community is concerned with Canada's euthanasia law (Link).
• UN demands change: Canada must end MAiD for people without terminal illness (Link).

Comments On The Absurd Death of An Autistic Teenager

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

I’ve been spending a lot of time reflecting on how good my life is right now. It’s been spring in Central Texas since February, and the program I teach at has had classes outside, like next to a turtle pond and a running creek. I‘ve found myself thinking of how wonderful it is to see the fish swimming in the stream, to see the turtles sunning themselves on the rocks, to feel the sun and the breeze on my face, to smell the Texas Mountain Laurel bushes with flowers that smell like grape candy, to have a job where I help others, to have long-desired writing and speaking opportunities, to  work in an intellectually stimulating environment, to live in a lovely apartment with my sweet, cuddly cat, to have close friends and kind coworkers and to be able to share that happiness with my family. 

So, I’m glad that a doctor didn’t help me kill myself when I was a clinically depressed autistic teenager, as one poor Netherlands adolescent experienced in 2023. 

He’s not the only clinically depressed autistic person to die by euthanasia in the Netherlands. In addition to the 2026 news story about his death, there was a similar story in the news in 2023. According to a recent article in the Atlantic, psychiatric euthanasia for Dutch teenagers with “terminal” mental illnesses is a “thing.”

In his interview for the National Post’s story on the issue, Canadian psychiatrist and mental health expert Sonu Gaind asserted, “To say, ‘this is now a terminal psychiatric condition’ has no scientific basis. The whole concept is nebulous.”

Sonu Gaind is right. I am not sure what would make a psychiatrist decide that a teenager whose brain is still developing  is “terminally” mentally ill. Then again, there is widespread ableism in mental healthcare; that’s why American disability rights advocates spearheaded an X hashtag campaign called #MyAbleistTherapist. For instance, a therapist once announced to me that my depression and neurological disabilities were so severe that I would never work. Did this teenager’s providers give him a similar message, except they went a step further and suggested that he be killed? 

As I’ve noted, this diagnosis of “terminal” psychiatric illness is generally opposed by disability justice advocates, disability studies scholars, etc. For instance, journalist Steve Silberman, whose book Neurotribes is viewed as the definitive history of the neurodiversity movement, remarked on a 2023 report about euthanasia for autism by asserting, “Horrific. #Autistic adults in the Netherlands are choosing medically assisted suicide because they can no longer stand the pain of loneliness.” In a 2015 editorial opposing Washington D.C.’s “MAiD” bill, internationally recognized disability justice advocate Ly Xīnzhèn M. Zhǎngsūn Brown notes:

“Our world is dominated by public discourse that considers disabled lives inherently defective, burdensome, suffering, and not worth living.” 

“MAiD” programs and other forms of violence that spring from this attitude are an injustice to disabled people of all ages. But declaring an autistic teenager’s mental illness “terminal” and euthanizing him takes that attitude to a ridiculous extreme. Even though I know that some “MAiD” advocates are fine with euthanizing children, I can’t help but be reflexively surprised that even the most vociferous “MAiD” acolyte wouldn’t think that euthanizing an autistic teenager is absurd. 

But perhaps this is what happens when powerful people decide that “MAiD” is no different than any other “medical procedure.” For instance, in an article in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics called “What’s so Special About Medically Assisted Dying?,” bioethicist Wayne Sumner asserts: 

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?”

I guess if you think that death is no big deal, then you won’t mind snuffing out the life of an disabled teenager. 

This cultural climate is one of the reasons that so many disability justice advocates oppose any “MAiD.” I think disability justice “MAiD” opponents generally understand that many Oregon model “MAiD”  proponents would never think of euthanizing an autistic teenager. But the general consensus is that some “MAiD” proponents have no such compunction, so it’s best to nip the US “MAiD” movement in the bud, before it gets out of control. 

Author Note: For a description of the kind of future that disabled adolescents deserve, view the 2024 PSA for World Down Syndrome Day called “Assume That I Can.”

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

Spanish woman (25) who became paralyzed after a suicide attempt is killed by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Noelia Castillo

I am saddened by the death of Noelia Castillo (25) who was killed by euthanasia on March 27. Some reports stated that organ procurement followed her death.

Castillo was approved for euthanasia in July 2024 based on partial paraplegia that was caused by her suicide attempt in October 2022. Castillo stated that her suicide attempt was related to being sexually assaulted.

Castillo was also diagnosed with significant psychiatric issues. Christian Caraballo reported for Euronews that:

Psychiatric reports indicate that the young woman has chronic depressive symptoms and an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, but rule out a major depressive disorder that would impair her decision-making capacity. She has also been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and borderline personality disorder.

The father of Noelia Castillo challenged the euthanasia approval all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.

Noelia Castillo was originally scheduled to be killed by euthanasia on August 2 but a judge suspended the death until a higher court could hear the case after her father challenged her approval for euthanasia.

On August 8, 2024, I reported that the father of a 23 year-old Spanish woman, (Noelia Castillo) challenged in court the approval of euthanasia for his daughter. The father argued in court that his daughter, who was living with partial paralysis, lacked the capacity to decide to be killed by euthanasia. Castillo became paralyzed after a suicide attempt.

On March 17, 2025 I reported that a Spanish court rejected an appeal by the father of Castillo his 24-year-old paraplegic daughter, who had been approved to be killed by euthanasia. An article published by Agence France-Presse reported that:

The father argued that his daughter suffered from mental disorders that "could affect her ability to make a free and conscious decision" as required by law.

He also said there were indications his daughter had changed her mind and that her ailment did not entail "unbearable physical or psychological suffering".

The article reported that the court decision decided that the woman met the conditions for euthanasia, which was legalised in the European country in 2021.

Laia Galiá reported for the Spanish ARA news on April 3, 2025 that a second challenge to a euthanasia approval would be heard by a Spanish Court. Galiá reported that the first decision was appealed by the Prosecutor's Office and Castillo's father. The case was referred to the High Court of Justice (TSJC)

On February 20, 2026 Reuters reported that Noelia Castillo who become disabled after an attempted suicide has been once again approved to be killed by euthanasia after Spain's Constitutional Court rejected the appeal by Castillo's father.

The case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights who rejected the appeal on March 10, 2026.

The human rights of people with disabilities are on the line. People with disabilities who are living with suicidal ideation can be killed by lethal poison based on being disabled. 

Castillo needed time and encouragement to accept the value of living with a disability.

A study published by Nature.com found that:

Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury SCI are at risk of attempting suicide; this risk is increased by the presence of a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a crucial need for risk assessment and psychological intervention for individuals with mental health issues following SCI.The Spanish euthanasia law is similar to the Canadian euthanasia law since it only requires that a person has "a serious chronic and disabling illness."

Euthanasia is not a treatment for people experiencing suicidal ideation, but rather supportive and life-affirming programs. Euthanasia was not a form of freedom for Noelia Castillo but was and abandoned to death.

The Spanish euthanasia law is similar to Canada's law which allows people with mental illness to be killed, if they have another health condition. People with disabilities who are live with mental illness are not protected from euthanasia, even when they have suicidal ideation.

Autistic teenager euthanized in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Yes, the title is correct. 

In 2023, an Autistic teenager was killed by euthanasia in the Netherlands. Some people might not care, but I have an autistic son.

This is not about terminal illness or uncontrolled suffering, not that I would agree to kill a person who is terminally ill or who needs pain and symptom management. This was a young autistic person with sensory issues who experiences the world in a different way. This killing of an autistic person, is based on a eugenic ideology.

I oppose killing people but it is a eugenic ideology that allows a psychiatrist to kill an autistic person by lethal poison. To make a decision that life with autism is worse than death, and so much so that the psychiatrist kills the person is to believe that some lives are not worth living. This eugenic ideology is very dangerous.

For those who believe that this story cannot be true, Sharon Kirkey published an article in the National Post on March 23, 2026 titled: Dutch doctors euthanized an autistic teen. Why some say that should be a 'wake-up call' for Canada. Kirkey explains:

The boy, aged between 16 and 18, had described his life as “joyless.” He’d struggled with anxiety and mood-related problems, and where he fit in, in the world. Oversensitive to stimuli, “every day was an ordeal he had to get through,” according to the latest annual report from the Netherlands’ regional euthanasia death review committees. “In the final weeks before his death, he lay in bed the whole time.”

Kirkey reports that young man's doctor was convinced that there was no prospect for improvement. As a father of a son with autism, I consider this statement to be ridiculous. Yes, the young man would always be autistic, but autism is based on his sensory perception. As a human, he would have difficult times, but with good care he would change.

In her July 2023 article, Meghan Schrader, an autistic woman who now works as a disability instructor in Texas, explains how she went through an incredibly difficult and psychotic time. We are fortunate that Meghan didn't live in the Netherlands and wasn't being treated by a eugenic psychiatrist who was willing to kill her.

Dr Sonu Gaind, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association was interviewed by Kirkey. She reports:

The Dutch experience “should be taken as a wake-up call,” said Dr. Sonu Gaind, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

“The threshold (for assisted death) in Canada is actually lower than the Netherlands,” Gaind said. “If MAID for sole mental illness is opened up in Canada, the numbers would significantly exceed what you see in the Netherlands.”

Charles Lane recently published an analysis, in the Atlantic, concerning the growth of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Kirkey explained:

While most euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands involve people with medical conditions such as cancer, 219 people whose suffering was largely due to one or more psychiatric illnesses died an assisted death in 2024, up from 88 in 2020.

Of the 2024 deaths, 111 involved people aged 30 to 60, 78 involved people 60 and over, and 30 deaths were among people aged 18 to 30. In 2023, two psychiatric euthanasia deaths involved a minor between the ages of 12 and 18. The teen with autism was one of them.

The Canadian parliament recently established another parliament (AMAD) euthanasia committee to once again examine the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone. I think that the Netherlands experience with euthanasia for mental illness alone is enough to tell us to reverse course and to not go there.

Gaind is sadly correct. There would be a higher percentage of euthanasia deaths for mental illness in Canada than in the Netherlands. The Netherlands define euthanasia as a "last resort" procedure, whereas in Canada, people can request and be killed by euthanasia without even try treatments that might result in the person getting better. 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Statement Against The Texas vs. Kennedy Lawsuit

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes “Medical Aid In Dying” as one endpoint of society withholding care and opportunities from disabled and/or terminally ill people. Hence, we oppose assisted suicide and we oppose conditions that make assisted suicide more likely to happen or contribute to a climate where assisted suicide is viewed as reasonable and desirable.

Therefore, we oppose the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit, the latest version of which was filed on January 23rd, 2026. The lawsuit is asking SCOTUS to eliminate the Final Rule, a set of critical updates to the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that were passed in 2024, on the premise that the rule’s requirement that states implement better community supports to prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of disabled people is “burdensome.” The success of this lawsuit would undermine efforts to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

First, the Final Rule contains Section 84.56(a), which forbids doctors from making “quality of life” decisions that cause disabled people’s deaths. Hence, that provision creates a strong regulatory bulwark against the legalization of assisted suicide.

The lawsuit contends that the Final Rule’s requirement that states implement additional community support to prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of disabled persons are “burdensome.” Hence, success of this lawsuit would contribute to situations in which institutionalized people with life-limiting conditions may feel coerced into assisted suicide.

The elimination of the Final Rule’s requirement that medical equipment be accessible to people with disabilities will also undermine efforts to prevent assisted suicide. Inaccessible medical equipment contributes to situations where people with life-limiting conditions feel steered towards assisted suicide.

Accordingly, we urge the attorney generals of Texas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and South Dakota to drop the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit, and for HHS not to adopt its proposed policy changes. The lawsuit’s goals undermine both disabled people’s dignity and efforts to fight euthanasia and assisted suicide in the United States.

Note: Readers living in the aforementioned states who wish to contact their attorney generals asking them to drop the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit can find contact information here.

Canadian Government Ignores UN Scrutiny Over Euthanasia Law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Breach published an article by Simon Spichak on February 11, 2026 concerning how Canada has ignored the scathing report UN Committee on Disability Rights on Canada's euthanasia law.

A press release from Inclusion Canada on March 26, 2025 explained that the report from the UN Committee on Disability Rights that called for Canada, among other recommendations, to: Repeal Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including the planned 2027 expansion to persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness,” and reject proposals to expand MAiD to “mature minors” and through advance requests.

Spichak writes in the Breach how Canada's federal government has ignored this recommendation. Spichak writes:

When the United Nations released a scathing report on Canada’s treatment of disabled people last spring—calling out inadequate financial supports and urging Ottawa to halt the expansion of medical assistance in dying—the federal government was silent. 

Nearly a year later, it still is.

Spichak gained access to internal government emails indicating that the government expected little scrutiny of the report and further the government eliminated the Minister for Disability.

The disability movement are not surprised. Spichak reports:

The UN report and its recommendations weren’t “surprising to anyone listening to the disabled community,” said Gabrielle Peters, a disabled writer and policy analyst and co-founder of the Disability Filibuster. Disabled Canadians, she said, expressed the same concerns in government testimony, to the media, and to “anyone who would listen.”

Spichak contacted federal government departments to find out if they are planning to act on the report and was told that they are "reviewing" the report. Spichak states:

...But the government has not publicly responded to the findings nor has it committed to holding public consultations on how they will be implemented.

This is not the first time that the federal government has been tight lipped about United Nations criticism of Canada's euthanasia law. Spichak explains:

Three UN human rights experts cautioned Canada in 2021 about MAiD expansion but did not receive a formal response.

The United Nations further challenged Canada's euthanasia law in March 2025. Spichak writes:

In March 2025 Canadian officials met in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss Canada’s track record on disability. They were asked to justify how the expansion of MAiD differs from “state-sponsored eugenics.”

Rosemary Kayess, vice-chair of the UN’s disability rights committee, questioned officials about the 2021 creation of the Track 2 pathway for MAiD. Track 2 expands access to medical euthanasia to people with significant and irreversible medical conditions, whose deaths are not foreseeable, if they experience what the law defines as “substantial suffering.”

Kayess challenged Canadian officials concerning Track 2 MAiD because Track 2 euthanasia approvals apply specifically to people with disabilities. The UN Committee was not pleased with the response of the Canadian officials. Spichak explains:

The UN committee was not satisfied with the responses they received. In a report they released a month later, they argued the federal court case that led to the creation of Track 2 MAiD established euthanasia based on “negative, ableist perceptions of the quality and value of the life of persons with disabilities.” It implied, they said, that suffering is intrinsic to disability rather than that “inequality and discrimination cause and compound ‘suffering.’”

In line with many disabled advocates, the committee argued that providing MAiD to disabled individuals allows the government “to enable their death without providing safeguards that guarantee the provision of support.”

Spichak then commented on the Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner's MAiD reports:

According to the Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner, as well as federal government reports, women and marginalized individuals are more likely to access Track 2 MAiD. One woman, referred to as Mrs. B, was euthanized within one day because her husband was “experiencing caregiver burden.” The woman, who was in her 80s, experienced complications after a coronary artery bypass graft.

Critics also say MAiD advocates often ignore the role that systemic deprivation —including poverty, inadequate services, lack of access to publicly funded psychotherapy, and social isolation—has in shaping who seeks assisted death.

In 2022, a 51-year old woman known as Sophia, who lived with multiple chemical sensitivity, accessed MAiD after being unable to secure affordable housing with adequate ventilation that would ease her symptoms.

Spichak suggests that the UN Committee on Disability Rights reports may have delayed the implementation of euthanasia in Canada to people with mental illness alone. Currently Canada's federal government has scheduled the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone for March 17, 2027.

Spichak states that the euthanasia lobby consider denying euthanasia for mental illness alone is illogical and discriminatory while opposition to euthanasia for mental illness alone argue that:

...it has so far proved impossible to determine whether someone’s mental illness is truly untreatable. The International Association for Suicide Prevention, an official partner of the UN, echoed similar concerns.

Spichak continues by explaining that the federal government has established no consultation process on the United Nations recommendations. Health Canada told Spichak that they were having a closed door round table meeting on February 26 to discuss the United Nations recommendations.

Gabrielle Peters questioned whether government funded disability charities and non-profits who receive at least 50% of their funding from the federal government will be capable of providing a - “controlled opposition” to government policy. Peters called the government's consultation on disability:

“An illusion of involvement that props up a policy of horror disguised by euphemisms and omissions.”

The article further discusses the response by the federal government to the UN Committee on Disability Rights report on Canada's euthanasia law and concludes:

Almost a year after the report’s release, there is no plan to substantially act on any of the UN’s recommendations. Government officials guessed right: mainstream news outlets have largely ignored the report’s criticisms of MAiD. Meanwhile, the situation for disabled Canadians—the poverty, health-care inequity, and other systemic neglect contributing to these deaths—remains unchanged.

The government has ignored the concerns of the disability community concerning Canada's euthanasia law as they continue to move towards more killing by euthanasia.

More articles on this topic:

• How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link).
• Shouldn't care come before euthanasia? (Link). 
• The International disability rights community is concerned with Canada's euthanasia law (Link).
• UN demands change: Canada must end MAiD for people without terminal illness (Link).
  
• United Nations Committee directs Canada to repeal Track 2 euthanasia deaths (Link).
• Canada's euthanasia deaths continue to rise with approximately 16,500 euthanasia deaths in 2024 (Link).
• Has Canada's euthanasia law gone too far (Link).