Netherlands: 517 people died by euthanasia without request in 2021.

Netherlands: 22% of the assisted deaths were not reported in 2021.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands has had a problem with euthanasia without request (LAWER) and the under-reporting of euthanasia since the inception of its euthanasia law.

Every five years the Netherlands government has commissioned a study to determine the number of deaths by medical and end-of-life decisions. The study is done by researchers who send questionnaires to physicians to determine how a random person died within a given year.

The questions seek to determine the number of deaths from all causes, including euthanasia, assisted suicide and ending of life without explicit request. The questionnaires allow the physician to respond anonymously, the data effectively uncovers the actual number of assisted deaths within a given year.

The Netherlands 2021 study (one year later than usual) found that there were 9,799 assisted deaths representing 9038 euthanasia deaths, 245 assisted suicide deaths and 517 ending of life without explicit request (LAWER).

LAWER involves the intentional ending of a person without an explicit request. I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide but I recognize that killing someone without request or consent remains a criminal homicide in nearly every jurisdictions, even when it is tolerated.

The 2021 study indicated that there were 517 LAWER deaths in the Netherlands representing approximately 0.3% of all deaths or 5.2% of all assisted deaths.

It is important to note that 6 of the deaths were newborns, also known as infanticide who would have been killed based on the Groningen protocol. Newborns with disabilities can be injected with lethal drugs in the Netherlands when a parent and doctor agree that the prospects for the child are poor or the child is considered "incompatible with life."

As stated, the Netherlands government commissions a study every five years. The 2015 study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in an article titled: End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years. The researchers published the 2015 study as a comparison to the previous studies.

The data from the 2015 study indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths representing 6672 euthanasia deaths, 150 assisted suicide deaths, 431 ending of life without explicit request.

The 517 LAWER deaths in 2021 and the 431 LAWER deaths in 2015 represent a similar percentage of all deaths in the Netherlands meaning that doctors in the Netherlands continue, at a similar rate, to kill people without an explicit request or consent.

Do physicians in other countries, including Canada intentionally kill people without an explicit request or consent. The answer is likely YES, but unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, other countries are not commissioning studies with specific questions to uncover the truth.

The issue of under-reporting of euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands 2021 euthanasia report stated that the number of reported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands was to 7666. The report also indicated that there were 206 reported euthanasia deaths for early stage dementia and 6 reported euthanasia deaths for late stage dementia and 115 reported euthanasia deaths for "severe" mental illness.

The data from the 2021 Netherlands government study found that there were 9,799 assisted deaths but the data from the Netherlands 2021 euthanasia report indicated that there were 7666 assisted deaths. Therefore (9,799 - 7,666) there were 2133 unreported assisted deaths in the Netherlands in 2021 representing approximately 22% of all assisted deaths.

Has under-reporting of euthanasia been a consistent problem in the Netherlands?

The 2015 study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths in 2015.

The Netherlands 2015 official euthanasia report stated that there were 5561 reported assisted deaths but the data from the 2015 Netherlands government study indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths meaning that there were 1693 unreported assisted deaths in 2015 representing about 23% of all assisted deaths in 2015.

When examining the data from previous Netherlands studies, it appears that more than 20% of all assisted deaths are consistently not reported.

Does Canada have a similar problem with under-reporting?

Canada legalized euthanasia (MAiD) in 2016. The Canadian government has not commissioned a death study to determine if abuse of the law occurs. The Québec euthanasia data indicates that there is under-reporting of euthanasia.

Amy Hasbrouck, the past president of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the leader of Toujours-Vivant (Not Dead Yet) analyzed the Quebec 2021-22 euthanasia report and found a discrepancy of 289 euthanasia deaths. Hasbrouck reported:

The Commission reported 3,663 euthanasia deaths declared by doctors during the fiscal year (p. 13), while the number of euthanasia deaths reported by facilities (3,629) and the Collège des Médecins du Québec (323) totalled 3,952 (p. 25 at note 25); a discrepancy of 289 deaths.

Hasbrouck found in the 2021 - 22 Québec annual euthanasia report a 7% likely under-reporting rate. Under-reporting of euthanasia may be occurring in the rest of Canada, but it is impossible to determine what is actually happening unless the Canadian government commissions a similar study to the Netherlands 5 year studies.

American assisted suicide laws.

There is evidence that under-reporting of assisted suicide is likely occurring in the US states that have legalized assisted suicide. 

For instance, the 2024 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that there were 376 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. (There were likely close to 400 reported assisted suicide deaths since every year a percentage of the assisted suicide reports are received late).

The 2024 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that the ingestion status is unknown in 178 cases. When the ingestion status is unknown, it means that the 178 people were approved for assisted suicide and received the lethal drugs but the Oregon Health Authority OHA does not know if they died by assisted suicide. Since no oversight exists and no research has not been done to confirm how these people died therefore it is impossible to say with certainty that unreported assisted suicide deaths are happening, but it is likely.

My conclusions.

The Netherlands 2021 study indicates that euthanasia without explicit consent and unreported euthanasia deaths continue.

In August 2013 I published the book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide which examined the data from the Netherlands and Belgian euthanasia studies. The purpose of the book was to warn the world that the legalizing euthanasia did not eliminate medical homicide, that in fact normalizing euthanasia appeared to increase the number of medical homicides.

Exposing Vulnerable People concluded that - when an assisted death was done "outside of the parameters of the law" that the death was rarely reported. It is likely that, if the researchers closely examined the 517 life-ending without request assisted deaths in 2021 they would likely find that most of these deaths were not reported.

Exposing Vulnerable People also concluded that the majority of LAWER deaths were done in a hospital to an incompetent person who was unable to consent. 

Without a data breakdown of the 2021 study data I cannot assume a similar conclusion but earlier data clearly indicated this reality.

I found it interesting that unlike the previous Netherlands government death studies (every 5 years), there was no analysis of the data which is why I am writing this article in 2025.

The 2021 Netherlands study proves that euthanasia deaths without explicit request or consent continues to happen and that more than 20% of the Netherlands euthanasia deaths continue to be not reported.

The data from the study should also ask the question, is there a similar phenomenon of killing patients without explicit request or consent happening in Canada or other countries and it should ask how many unreported euthanasia deaths happen in Canada and other countries? A study needs to be commissioned by neutral researchers to determine the answers to these questions.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide does not eliminate the phenomenon of medical homicide and the normalization of euthanasia seems to justify these acts.

Belgium euthanasia (2020-21 report). 2700 euthanasia deaths in 2021. 27,726 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2020-21 Belgium euthanasia report was recently released indicating that there were 2445 reported euthanasia deaths in 2020 and 2700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2021. From legalization in 2002 until the end of 2021, there has been 27,726 reported euthanasia deaths.

Thank you to the European Institute of Bioethics (EIB) for providing a summary of the report.

I refer to reported euthanasia deaths because there is a significant percentage of unreported euthanasia deaths in Belgium. The Belgian report acknowledges the problem by stating:

As in its previous reports, the Commission “does not have the possibility of evaluating the proportion of the number of euthanasia's declared in relation to the number of euthanasia's actually performed. In other words, these figures only reflect part of the reality of euthanasia in Belgium.

New categories of information in the report including that 31 of the euthanasia deaths were approved based on an advanced request, meaning these people were incompetent at the time of death and 172 died by euthanasia while in palliative care and 79 of the euthanasia deaths were foreign citizens.

The European Institute of Bioethics (EIB) reported that:

The conditions at the origin of euthanasia were in a large majority of cases generalized or seriously mutilating cancers (63%). Among the other reasons for requesting euthanasia, multiple pathologies (18% or 900 people), diseases of the nervous system (8%), diseases of the circulatory system (4%), diseases of the respiratory system (3%), psychiatric conditions (1% or 45 people) and cognitive disorders (dementia) for 49 people (1%).

The report indicates that 29 people died by euthanasia based on variable symptoms related to Long Covid. 

One may suggest that only 45 people with psychiatric conditions and 49 people with dementia died by euthanasia. Euthanasia for psychiatric conditions and dementia is an acceptance of killing people with questionable competency and ability to consent.

The Belgian report indicates that of the 45 people who died by euthanasia based on psychiatric conditions, 18 people had mood disorders (depression, bipolarity, etc.); 10 people had personality and behavioral disorders; 6 people had neurotic disorders, stressor-related disorders and somatoform disorders; 3 people had schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder and delusional disorder, and 4 people had organic mental disorders such as autism; 2 people had behavioral syndromes such as anorexia.

I have an autistic son. I am always shocked when someone is killed by lethal injection based on Autism. 

The EIB summary indicates that the euthanasia report stated:

The report states that in young psychiatric patients, "the unbearable and persistent pain was frequently associated with past experiences" such as abuse sexual, abandonment as a child, rejection by parents, behaviors self-harm and suicide attempts. The Commission added that “failed suicide attempts have made those affected aware that there is another, more dignified way to end one's life. We may be surprised at this presentation of euthanasia as a “more dignified” form of suicide.

The multiple pathologies category includes people who are not terminally ill but have chronic conditions. Nearly one-third of these deaths were people who were diagnosed with cancer, but were not terminally ill. Many of these people died by euthanasia but had treatable conditions.

The EIB summary indicates that the report stated:

However, rehabilitation and recovery are very limited in the elderly. Many patients could not accept living with severe and permanent disabilities. Dependence, loss of autonomy and the feeling of futility to wait for death were important factors that triggered their request euthanasia.

In relation to euthanasia for symptoms related to blindness/macular degeneration, the EIB stated that the report said:

...All of this created a feeling of loneliness, a feeling of being a burden to others, and the feeling that continuing to exist no longer makes sense.

The EIB summary states that more than a third of those who died for the reason of multiple pathologies, were not expected to die soon. The report indicates that 741 (14.4%) of the people who died by euthanasia, that their death was not expected soon.

The role of the euthanasia clinic (LEIF-EOL) in Belgium. According to the report, 33% of the consultations include doctors who are connected to LEIF-EOL and 19% of the first requests for euthanasia are made to doctors who are connected to LEIF-EOL.

The EIB concludes their summary by stating:

As a reminder, the Commission sticks to the statements given to it by the doctor and therefore has no no means of verifying the veracity of these declarations. In 30% of the files, the Commission decided to lift the anonymity of the declaration in order to ask additional information to the reporting physician. These were imperfections in the responses, errors of interpretation concerning the procedures followed, on several points badly, insufficiently or not completed, procedural points that have not been followed correctly,... Each time, the Commission considered that "the essential conditions of the law (voluntary, considered and of a conscious and capable patient, constant, unbearable and unrelievable suffering, resulting of a serious and incurable condition, the medical situation being hopeless)” seemed to have been respected.

There are significant issues related to the Belgian euthanasia law beyond the fact that the law gives doctors the right to kill people. 

1. The number and reasons for killing by euthanasia continues to rise. 
2. The law lacks significant oversight because the Commission includes several euthanasia doctors and in fact the Chair of the Commission, Dr Wim Distelmans, also operates the LEIF-EOL euthanasia clinic. 
3. The Commission admits that there are unreported euthanasia deaths, but the Belgian government has not done anything to rectify this problem. When I wrote my book, Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, I was able to prove that the unreported euthanasia deaths tended to be the deaths that were more controversial, such as euthanasia without request or consent.

Similar to the Netherlands and Canada, the expansion of euthanasia is not a slippery slope, but rather it is inevitable. If it is acceptable to kill someone with one condition, it is hard to justify why you can't kill someone else for a similar but different condition. The report even referred to euthanasia as a "more dignified form of suicide."

Once again I thank the European Institute of Bioethics (EIB) for providing a summary of the report.

Three arrested in New York death of ventilator dependent resident.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, announced the arrest of two registered nurses and a certified nurses aid in connection with the death of an 81 year-old ventilator dependent resident of the A. Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility in Uniondale.

According to the December 28th press release from the AG:

The resident, whose identity is being kept confidential, lived on a specialized ventilator unit at the facility. She required a mechanical ventilator to breathe and was entirely dependent on the nursing staff; the resident passed away after the defendants failed to respond to the ventilator alarms. If convicted, the defendants, none of whom still work at the facility, each face up to seven years in prison. 

“These allegations paint a picture of blatant neglect that ultimately resulted in the death of a patient,” 

“My office will always hold accountable those medical professionals and others who knowingly ignore a patient’s basic needs or recklessly place any nursing home resident in a life-threatening situation.”

The media release described the case:

The complaint alleges that on the morning of December 20, 2015, the resident–who was wheelchair bound and ventilator dependent–became disconnected from her ventilator. The resident was unable to breathe without the assistance of her mechanical ventilator. A visual and audible alarm was immediately triggered which notified nursing staff on the floor that this resident was in an emergency, life-threatening situation. 

Sijimole Reji, Annieamma Augustine and Martine Morland were at the nursing station near the resident’s room when the alarm sounded throughout the unit. All nursing staff who work on the ventilator unit at A. Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility are required to immediately respond to resident ventilator alarms. These three defendants–Reji, Augustine and Morland–ignored the emergency ventilator alarm for more than nine minutes and failed to provide any assistance to the resident who languished without oxygen. 

Eventually, when staff entered her room, they discovered that the resident was unresponsive and unconscious. The resident was transported from A. Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility to Nassau University Medical Center, where she died the following day, December 21, 2015.

Deaths and abuse in care homes is not uncommon. Recently a nurse was charged in the deaths of eight people who lived in care homes in Woodstock and London Ontario.

The victim's life was in the hands of her care-givers. It is not realistic to expect that people in society who disdain the lives of people with disabilities, won't also consider their life as not worth living. Data from Belgium shows that a significant number of lives are ended each year without request. Usually these people are incompetent or completely dependent on their care-givers.

Belgian doctors are killing patients by euthanasia without request.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Journal of Medical Ethics published a research article written by Raphael Cohen-Almagor, a human rights activist and Chair of the Politics department at the University of Hull.

The article: First do no harm intentional shortening lives of patients without their explicit request in Belgium focuses on published data concerning the practise of causing death without patient request in Belgium and it also focuses on the policy of the Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine Council concerning the administration of sedative agents with the direct intention of shortening life.

Cohen-Almagor examines the Belgian research from the years 1998, 2001, 2007 and 2013. Whereas a basic examination of the research would suggest that the percentage of hastened deaths without explicit request has lowered, the reality indicates that the practise remains common resulting in over 1000 hastened deaths without request each year.

For instance, in 1998, 4 years before euthanasia was legalised in Belgium, research indicates that 3.2% of all deaths were hastened without request while a similar studies in 2007 found that 1.8% of all deaths and in 2013 - 1.7% of all deaths were hastened without explicit.

In December 2012 I published my book - Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, that examined much of this data, even though Cohen-Almagor also examines newer data.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

A review of the research by Steve Dougherty of the Daily Mail UK reported that:

Thousands of elderly people have been killed by their own GPs without ever asking to die under Belgium’s euthanasia laws, an academic report said yesterday. 

It said that around one in every 60 deaths of a patient under GP care involves someone who has not requested euthanasia. 

Half of the patients killed without giving their consent were over the age of 80, the study found, and two thirds of them were in hospital and were not suffering from a terminal disease such as cancer. 

In about four out of five of the cases, the death was not discussed with patients subjected to ‘involuntary euthanasia’ because they were either in a coma, they were diagnosed with dementia, or because doctors decided it would not be in their best interests to discuss the matter with them. 

Very often doctors would not inform the families of plans to lethally inject a relation because they considered it a medical decision to be made by themselves alone, the report published by the Journal of Medical Ethics said.

The Daily Mail article continued:

Report author Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor of Hull University said: ‘The decision as to which life is no longer worth living is not in the hands of the patient but in the hands of the doctor.’ 

‘It should also be noted that deliberately ending the lives of patients without their request is taking place in Belgium more than in all other countries that document such practices, including the Netherlands. 

‘It is worrying that some physicians take upon themselves the responsibility to deliberately shorten patients’ lives without a clear indication from the patients that this is what they would want.’

The data also indicates that deaths that were hastened without request were rarely reported even though reporting is a requirement of the Belgian euthanasia law.

To eliminate confusion for the readers Cohen-Almagor pointed out that the Belgian euthanasia law does not apply to: 

"non-competent patients and it does not allow the deliberate shortening of their lives."

Similar research from the Netherlands indicates that there is a lesser, but equally concerning problem with deaths of people without explicit request in that country.

When accessing the data from several sources, Cohen-Almagor clearly shows that Belgium euthanasia is not limited to people who request it, and it is not limited to people who are competent.

The concept of euthanasia based on "choice" is often an illusion.

Legalizing euthanasia is bad public policy and it is not safe.

More than 1000 Belgian deaths were hastened without explicit request in 2013.

By Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schdenberg

Executive Director Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Contrary to the Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada's laws that protect people from assisted death, in Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, a significant number people are dying by euthanasia without request.

Yesterday I wrote an article about the study published in the NEJM on March 19, 2015 on the experience with euthanasia in Flanders Belgium.  The study sent 6188 questionnaires to the physician who certified death certificates in the first half of 2013. The researchers received 3751 responses representing a 60.6% rate of return. The data indicated that 4.6% of all deaths were euthanasia and .05% of all deaths were assisted suicide.

This study found that 1.7% of deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium, in 2013, were intentionally hastened without explicit request. A similar study in 2007 found that 1.8% of deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were hastened without explicit request, meaning that the problem continues.

Since there are 61,621 deaths in Flanders in 2013 and since the study found that 1.7% of all deaths were hastened without explicit request, therefore more than 1000 deaths were hastened without explicit request in 2013 in Flanders.

The Supreme Court of Canada assisted dying decision stated that abuse of euthanasia laws are anecdotal. A previous Belgian study in 2007 found that 1.8% of all deaths were hastened without explicit consent and this new Belgian study (2013) found that 1.7% of all deaths were hastened without explicit consent representing no statistical change in Belgium.

The Associated Press article interviewed Belgian ethicist Freddy Mortier. The article stated:

Mortier was not happy, however, that the 'hastening of death without explicit request from patients,' which can happen when a patient slumbers into unconsciousness or has lost the capacity for rational judgment, stood at 1.7 percent of cases in 2013. In the Netherlands, that figure was 0.2 percent.

People need to recognize that euthanasia or assisted suicide laws will be abused. Will assisted death be your choice or will it be imposed on you?

To learn about the abuse and expansion of euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium order my book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

• New study: Euthanasia represents 4.6% of all deaths in Flanders Belgium in 2013, deaths without patient request continue.
• Supreme Court of Canada decision is irresponsible and dangerous.
• Belgium euthanasia deaths increase by 26.8% in 2013.
• Belgian euthanasia promoter admits to problems with the euthanasia law.

Deep Sedation: France is in danger of buying a deadly illusion.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE, is the director of EPC International and lives near Avignon France.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

France is in danger of buying a deadly illusion: that terminal sedation is neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia. In the Netherlands it can be both, and the numbers of people being terminally sedated there are growing at an alarming rate. From the minute the Assemblée Nationale should pass any such legislation, terminal sedation will become the lie to hide the practice of euthanasia throughout France too.

On Tuesday March 17, 2015 the French parliament overwhelmingly voted to give people the right to demand terminal sedation – that is, for them to be made unconscious in their last hours and days. We have been warning about the steep rise in the use of terminal sedation in the Netherlands, as a form of ‘back-door’ euthanasia.

In the Netherlands, only informed adults who meet all the criteria of the Dutch law are counted as euthanasia deaths. None of those who are unable to give informed consent, a key element of the Dutch law, are counted. So no neonates killed because of their disabilities, no older people with dementia, or those in persistent coma, no-one who finds some doctor willing to ‘grant’ them a euthanasia death because they fail to meet Dutch legal criteria. Those who die through terminal sedation are not generally counted either, but the rise in their numbers is frightening.[1]

Even in those cases where deep sedation is a serious consideration, for those few individual people whose refractory symptoms cannot be managed by modern palliative medicine, profound questions remain to be answered. But in the 1990s this group was estimated at below 5% of all cases.[2] Today palliative care specialists, and advances in their field, mean that fewer than 2% of patients are faced with terminal sedation as their only option.[3] Of course every individual deserves our best response, but if their numbers are falling why then should terminal sedation be on the rise at all? In the Netherlands or anywhere else?

To create a specious ‘right’ to die by terminal sedation as the French propose, is yet another hoodwink – it allows a larger public to believe this is all being done so maturely, with such compassion, and manages to avoid all the thorny questions about assisted suicide and euthanasia. It does no such thing. And simply claiming that such deaths will be neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia cannot change the fact that, often, this is exactly what they are.

Administering a lethal dose in order to bring about death is killing, it is murder, and many French doctors have spoken out against the latest proposal having no wish to be drawn over to this sinister side of the debate. Administering a dose to relieve pain which may have the double effect of ‘hastening death’ is not always subtly different. The question is: who can tell? A doctor, a nurse, a pharmacist? The relevant information is usually guarded or hidden, but we may hope to be able to find out. Hidden intentions are so much more difficult to unearth. Protesting doctors know that from their own experience.

President Hollande is said to have been convinced of the need for legalised euthanasia by the death of his mother Nicole in 2009. The Claeys-Leonetti proposal that calls for terminal sedation on demand has garnered cross-party support, something the beleaguered leader needs after other failures have seen his popularity drop below that of any previous incumbent of the highest office in France. The point here is that political careers can be built or can fall on such ‘opportunities’ – this is never a clean debate.

The Dutch and the Belgians openly admit their legal frameworks were intended to ‘regularise’ already existing and illegal practice, they say ‘so as to avoid abuse’. Yet those illegals acts, so prevalent it took new legislation to accommodate them, were never prosecuted. And avoiding abuse is so far from what has happened in either country, when under-reporting remains at nearly a quarter of all euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands. Research suggests the rate of unreported deaths is even higher in Belgium. But in Belgium the leading euthanasia practitioner heads up the oversight committee, which has never referred one euthanasia death reported to it for investigation. It is easy to see why doctors might not even be bothered to report. Or why nurses are committing euthanasia, which is also illegal. [4]

The Belgians also openly admit their law was framed to support suicide for disabled people, and insist this is a matter of patient choice. The inherent discrimination against disabled people is exacerbated by entirely removing patient choice into the hands of a third party, usually a doctor. In another terrible irony, the lobby for assisted suicide/euthanasia argue that no-one should be ‘forced’ to spend their last moments unconscious. They cannot have it both ways.

In France, the debate has split Assemblée deputies – 121 of them co-signed an amendment to legalise ‘active medical assistance to die’ which would come worryingly fast – the patient’s demand for euthanasia would be confirmed over 2 days, and 3 doctors’ opinions would see the person dead in just 4 more days, with no serious controls in place apart form a mention in their medical notes.

The choice will be between "double-effect sedation" and barely disguised euthanasia. It is not cynicism that makes me say the majority of the sedation deaths will be euthanasia deaths, it is experience. I bitterly regret that part of human nature which will move so swiftly and seamlessly to the worst edges of practice – the fact is, once it ‘becomes legal’ so many who stop now, pause and ask themselves ‘Is this really right?’ will simply shrug and say instead ‘Well, it’s legal now’ – that is one of the conditions those people need to bury the last vestiges of their consciences in ‘I’m only following orders.’ Now where have we heard that before? In that other great and most destructive illusion…

1. Agnes van der Heide, et al ‘End-of-Life Practices in the Netherlands under the Euthanasia Act’ New England J Med 2007; 356:1957-1965 May 10, 2007 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa071143
2. Heintz, A P M (1994) 'Euthanasia can be part of good terminal care' British Medical Journal vol 308, p1656
3. From private conversation with a palliative care specialist
4. Alex Schadenberg Exposing vulnerable people to euthanasia and assisted suicide ISBN 978-1-897007-27-3 

Schadenberg interviewed by the Voice of Russia concerning Belgium's child euthanasia law.

The Voice of Russia interviewed Alex Schadenberg on Friday February 14, 2014 concerning the Belgian bill to extend euthanasia to children. Schadenberg is the International Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Schadenberg debating euthanasia
in Belgium - November 2013.

What is your stance on euthanasia in general?

We are opposed to it for the very simple reason, because it allows somebody else to cause someone’s death. That is the situation where in law they give usually a physician the right to cause your death. These things are often abused, but on top of it, once you give someone else that power over life and death, you create a situation where things can happen the way we never wanted and deaths occur. We cannot properly control it.

In the case of Belgium, I’m very concerned because, in fact, you’ve had massive abuse of this Belgian law to start with. What the Belgian Government should be doing is they should re-evaluate their euthanasia law and try to control it, if they want to keep it, but I don’t think they should keep it, rather than expanding it now to children. Recent studies have shown that almost one third of all the euthanasia deaths are done without request. So, with that level of abuse within the system they shouldn’t be expanding the law, they should be reevaluating what they are actually doing.

The other thing they are debating in Belgium is euthanasia for people with dementia. And they are saying – well, we have all these people with dementia, if they had wanted euthanasia, maybe we should now do it to them, even though they can’t consent. So, the whole concept of consent is messed up. The fact is that you have a culture that’s become addicted to eliminating certain lives or encouraging them to say “no” to their lives.

Some of what you’ve described almost sounds like eugenics-related program.

Euthanasia statistics in Belgium.

The following article was written by Irene Ogrizek and published on her blog on December 15, 2013. Ogrizek is a politically left activist.

Irene Ogrizek

The Belgian population should be aware of the high level of paternalism among their physicians. One study shows that 60% of the surveyed physicians think that they should be able to decide to end the life of a patient who suffers unbearably and is incapable of making decisions…[no mention of terminal illness].
The Canadian media is being unkind to those of us who oppose euthanasia. I suspect a liberal bias is at the root of it. This means I have found myself, a committed leftist, feeling some empathy with Canada’s conservatives. They and many people who believe in God, are, like me, opposed to euthanasia.

This problem reminds me of another problem I saw in Toronto in the 1980s. It was a phenomenon called “not in my backyard” or NIMBY for short. In a Toronto context, this referred to downtown liberals who espoused liberal-sounding beliefs, but behaved quite differently when the people who benefitted from those beliefs wanted to move into their neighbourhoods. These are people I call buffet liberals. They are like Champagne Charlies but with a lot less charm.

I know from whence I speak. I am part of a global network of activists. We are concerned about how our parents are being treated in the Canadian, Belgian and U.K. healthcare systems. We have watched with dismay, disbelief and horror as they have been mercilessly shortchanged. We have seen bad nursing, bad doctoring and certainly bad administering. Our stories are legion in Canada, but you’d never know it from following our nation’s media.

Canada’s Healthcare System

The myth that the Canadian healthcare system is great is persistent: the NIMBY issue is the undesirable news that no, actually, in some places, it’s in tatters. I know bloggers who have simply given up because of the venom Canadians have directed at them for uttering words to this effect. This is what happens to those of us who dare to challenge the accepted wisdom. I really wish the Canadian media would get on board and listen to us and validate our stories. As it is, our absence means we are treated with far less respect than we deserve.

When it comes to euthanasia , proponents make two common refrains: one, that statistics from euthanasia-friendly countries do not support evidence of abuse; two, that reports of abuse – in Belgium and elsewhere – are anecdotal and sensationalist.

The following is mostly a list of facts culled from a series of Belgian studies directed at doctors and nurses. Raphael Cohen-Almagor is the author of “First do no harm: pressing concerns regarding euthanasia in Belgium,” and the text below is a summary of his most salient findings. He’s a euthanasia expert based at the University of Hull in the U.K.

Academic Paper critical of euthanasia released in Tasmania.

Paul Russell with
Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published today on their blog.

By Paul Russell

Academic Paper (link): “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” 

In February this year, the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings and Nick McKim MP released a discussion paper on euthanasia seeking submissions and input from the community on a draft proposal for legislation they referred to as 'Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD)'. Their intention to work towards this legislative change had been originally announced in mid-2010.

Any debate on voluntary assisted dying is going to be difficult, but as elected representatives we believe it is our responsibility to take on the challenging questions of reform to ensure that our laws in this area are contemporary, transparent and in-line with community expectations. (from the VAD paper's introduction)

We understand that there were in excess of 900 responses to the ‘discussion paper’. The closing date for submissions was March 15. One canny observer wondered if it was simply a coincidence that the consultation ended on the ‘Ides of March’ – I’ll leave readers to ponder that for themselves.

Giddings and McKim gave no undertaking in the paper that they would produce a summary report of findings and, to date and with the bill to be debated in a week, there is no sign that the authors intend to share the results for the benefit of the discussion and transparency.

At the time of the paper’s launch, RealDignityTasmania spokesman, Dr. Paul Dunne made the following observation:

The paper employs selective and deficient research, much of which is funded by known pro-euthanasia advocates, designed to paint a picture of flawless implementation of legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide systems around the world. The main authorities cited by Giddings and McKim are the result of known pro-euthanasia initiatives. Key evidence has been ignored in this paper.

Also aware of this bias, the HOPE submission argued for a broader public discussion:

Given that this presentation provides the VAD paper with an ‘advanced status of authority’ we believe that it is inappropriate for the VAD paper to stand in the public square without the same opportunity being advanced to the contrary argument.  (HOPE submission page 23)

This all adds to the conclusion that this whole affair is essentially an exercise in gnostic paternalism. All of us, for reasons unknown, should trust that Giddings and McKim have done all the hard work of study for us, so we needn’t worry ourselves over the detail but simply accept that they know what’s best for Tasmanians!

The HOPE submission concluded with this warning:

Without a conscious attempt by the authors of the VAD paper to provide public access to the contrary argument on a par with that afforded the VAD; Tasmanians will have been denied the opportunity to exercise rational judgement – choice. The authors, in advancing their agenda, need also to observe the precautionary principle, with the highest standards of proof, lest, without such appropriate scrutiny, Tasmanian citizens are put at risk of their lives by such legislation.

With a week until the resumption of the parliament, two Tasmanian academics have released their own report on the discussion paper. Jeremy Pritchard holds a PhD in law and is a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) in the field of Criminology. Hannah Graham is an Associate Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology and a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Law at UTAS.

Their 34 page analysis entitled: “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” is critical of the approach taken by the Giddings/McKim paper, summarizing that:

“…the paper produced by Giddings and McKim does not constitute a compelling evidence-based case for changing the law. The risks of proceeding with the model that they propose are not justified.”

They observe that:

"A number of the claims that they make inappropriately imply concrete facts"(i.e. sentiments along the lines of “the evidence has spoken” and “our research shows…”) without acknowledging the depth of international contention on certain topics." 

“…significant amounts of empirical evidence and alternative academic and professional perspectives have been understated or omitted in their paper.” 

”We look at what is being proposed and what is missing. In particular, we analyse what is missing from Giddings and McKim’s portrayal of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.”

The author’s media statement today provides a good summary: 

“We felt that a response in the form of a research paper was necessary because Lara Giddings and Nick McKim’s paper, to our view, understates the complexity of international evidence and debate on the topic of euthanasia. Our paper disagrees with a number of their claims and incorporates literature which was not included in their document. We reference over 180 sources, mainly academic publications and government reports.”

Giddings and McKim’s paper relied substantially upon certain select academic papers cited without due regard for known criticisms. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, they cited the Royal Society of Canada report, the UK Commission on Assisted Dying and the recent report from the think-tank, Australia 21 which all adopted a similar line of argument, likewise omitting or dismissing references to studies and analyses that put the counter argument. 

One could observe that such circular and almost exclusive referencing (each report building upon the others) was a potential ‘perfect storm’ in the making. Nor is it a stretch to observe that, whether deliberate or not, the absence of serious critique of the ‘vulnerable persons’ question could leave the authors of these papers open to a claim that this could, itself, constitute abuse by neglect.

Graham and Pritchard deal with the issues of Elder Abuse, Disability, Feminist perspectives, the Slippery Slope arguments as well as a thorough review of the literature pertaining to Belgium, The Netherlands, Oregon and the Fleming Court case in Ireland.

They conclude:

“Based on the evidence and experiences presented in this paper, we conclude that there are unjustifiable risks in proceeding with the euthanasia law reform proposed by Giddings and McKim.”

The same might also be said for the debates current in Quebec, France, England and Scotland.

We eagerly await a reply from the Premier and Mr McKim.

The book Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide by Alex Schadenberg analyses the studies that confirm that the risk to vulnerable people is real, that vulnerable people in places such as The Netherlands and Belgium are at risk.

The book retails for $20.00. For more information and to purchase your copy. Link. 

It's time to talk about euthanasia

An interesting article was written by Judith Timson and published on October 3, 2013 in the Toronto Star under the title: Its time to talk about dying. 

This article is particularly interesting when one considers the ambiguous language in the Quebec government euthanasia bill (Bill 52).

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Timson's article opens with a narrative concerning her 89 year-old friend Zelda who has attended several "death café" meetings. Timson then writes about Dr Donald Low's video in which the prominent infectious disease  specialist called for Canada to legalize assisted suicide. 

Timson notes (disapprovingly) that Canada's federal government has no intention of legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This is where the article becomes interesting, Timson states:

Bring up legalized assisted suicide and everyone chimes in. “It’s really not that complex” says an acquaintance. “You go to a doctor, get certified as both sane and terminal and you get a prescription you can take when you’re ready to die.” 

I believe that if you are dying and almost certainly unlikely to recover, you should be able to decide when and how to die. But my own family’s experience has complicated this view. 

When my mother was 70, she lay seriously ill in intensive care, intubated, in an induced coma, with a jet ventilator breathing for her. The nurses would rub her feet and say to each other, “why are they keeping this poor woman alive?” 

My mom answered that question: she fully recovered, lived for 20 more wonderful years, saw her grandchildren grow up, and became a volunteer at that hospital, where the nurses told her about their conversation, marvelling at the miracle of her recovery. 

Life is a miracle, but so is death in a way. It’s also inconvenient, or not there when you want or need it. My husband’s grandmother Nanny used to say, before she died at 96, “I think God has forgotten I’m down here.” Despite that, she had a fierce will to live.

Netherlands 2012 euthanasia report: Sharp increase in euthanasia deaths.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


The Netherlands have reported that the number of reported euthanasia deaths increased by 13% in 2012 to 4188 deaths, more than 3% of all deaths in 2012. The report stated that 42 people with dementia and 13 people with psychiatric conditions died by euthanasia in the Netherlands in 2012.

185 of the 4188 deaths were assisted suicide deaths and 38 were a combination of  euthanasia and assisted suicide.

An article in the Telegraph reported that, where euthanasia is legal that:

Euthanasia is lowest in Luxembourg, where it has been legal since 2009, between 2011 and end 2012, 14 people were killed, a per capita rate a tenth of that in the Netherlands.

The number of euthanasia deaths for people with dementia has been increasing since the Dutch Medical Association  expressed support for the euthanasia of people with dementia.

These statistics should affect the debates in Quebec and France who are considering the legalization of euthanasia.

As bad as these statistics are, they only tell part of the story.

On July 11, 2012, The Lancet published a meta-analysis study concerning euthanasia and end-of-life practices in the Netherlands in 2010 including a comparison to the previous meta-analysis studies that were done in 2005, 2001, 1995 and 1990.

The Lancet study indicated that in 2010, 23% of the euthanasia deaths were unreported in the Netherlands, which was an increase from 20% in 2005. The Lancet study found that there were 3859 euthanasia deaths and 192 assisted suicide deaths while only 3136 euthanasia deaths were reported in 2010.

Since (20 - 23%) of the euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands are not reported, we can estimate that the actual number of euthanasia deaths was likely around 5025 to 5151.

The report indicated that health inspectors investigated 10 cases where the legal requirements for euthanasia had not been met, with 2 of those cases involving people with dementia.

My book - Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, is based on research concerning all assisted deaths in the Netherlands and Belgium. Exposing Vulnerable People concludes that when a doctor reports the euthanasia death, usually the rules in the euthanasia law are followed, but when a doctor does not report a euthanasia death it is usually because the doctor never intended to follow the rules of the euthanasia law. Abuse of the Belgian and Netherlands euthanasia laws are common.

The only way to uncover euthanasia deaths without request and the abuses of the law, is by investigating the unreported euthanasia deaths.

It is important to recognize that the number of reported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands increased by 13% in 2012, 18% in 2011, 19% in 2010 and 13% in 2009.

• There were 1923 reported euthanasia deaths in 2006.
• There were 2120 reported euthanasia deaths in 2007.
• There were 2331 reported euthanasia deaths in 2008.
• There were 2636 reported euthanasia deaths in 2009.
• There were 3136 reported euthanasia deaths in 2010.
• There were 3695 reported euthanasia deaths in 2011.
• There were 4188 reported euthanasia deaths in 2012.

The report does not indicate the number of children with disabilities who died by euthanasia under the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands.

The rate of deep-continuous sedation has also risen significantly in the Netherlands.

The 2001 euthanasia report indicates that 5.6% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to deep-continuous sedation. The 2005 euthanasia report indicates that 8.2% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to deep-continuous sedation. The 2010 euthanasia report indicates that 12.3% of all deaths are related to deep-continuous sedation.

The rate of deep-continuous sedation has more than doubled in the Netherlands since 2001. 

There is a growing concern about the abuse of the terminal sedation guidelines in the Netherlands. How often are deaths by deep-continuous sedation actually euthanasia?

Combined with the growth in the use of terminal sedation for people who are not otherwise dying (slow euthanasia) and the number of unreported euthanasia deaths, one must conclude that the practice of euthanasia continues to be out-of-control in the Netherlands.

The report stated that:

Researchers have been unable to determine why the number of cases is rising, but say they suspect it is due to greater acceptance of euthanasia by both patients and doctors.

On March 1, 2012; the euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands launched six mobile euthanasia teams. The NVVE, euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands, announced that they anticipate that the mobile euthanasia teams would carry-out 1000 euthanasia deaths per year.

The mobile euthanasia team fill "unmet demand" for euthanasia for people with chronic depression (mental pain), people with disabilities, people with dementia  and loneliness, and for those whose request for euthanasia is declined by their physician. In the past, 13% of euthanasia requests in the Netherlands were declined. It appears likely that fewer requests for euthanasia are being declined.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide is not safe and the safeguards that are devised to control euthanasia actually protect physicians and do not protect the people who die by euthanasia.

Links to similar articles:

• Euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands: New Dutch Stats.
• Euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in 2012 in Belgium.
• Quebec euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is a very dangerous bill.