At least 15 Canadian prisoners have been killed by euthanasia since legalization.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 3, 2025, Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness responded to a request by Garnet Genuis (MP) (Sherwood Park - Fort Saskatchewan Alberta) reported that from legalization until September 2025 - 15 federal inmates have been killed by (MAiD) euthanasia.

Considering the fact that Canada abolished the death penalty in two main stages: first for civilian crimes in 1976 (Bill C-84), replacing it with a mandatory life sentence, and then completely for all military offences in 1998. The last civilian executions happened in December, 1962, with the final military executions in 1945.

This is not the first concern about this issue. Tristan Hopper wrote an article that was published in the National Post in May 2023 asking if Euthanasia of Canadian prisoners is a form of capital punishment?

Hopper wrote that, at that time, nine prisoners had died by euthanasia in Canada. The APTN network reported that the first three prisoners to die by euthanasia were indiginous Canadians who remained shackled during the killing.

Ivan Zinger

Hopper's report stated that Ivan Zinger, Canada's Correctional Investigator, told Kathleen Martens, the reporter for the APTN network, that euthanasia should never be done in the prison. He stated:

“Under no circumstances should the procedure of MAiD be dealt with inside a penitentiary,”

“That is highly problematic, unethical and immoral in my view. I think we would be the only jurisdiction in the world who would do that.”Kim Beaudin, vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and a member of corrections’ National Aboriginal Advisory Committee opposes (MAiD) euthanasia being done in prisons. 

According to Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness December 3 report that of the 15 Canadian prisoners who died by euthanasia, 14 were killed in an external facility and 1 died in the correctional facility.

I have always opposed capital punishment because I do not believe that the government should have the right in law to kill it's citizens.

In the same way, I do not believe that medical practitioners should have the right in law to kill people.

MAiD has made Canadians with disabilities often afraid of the healthcare system.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Krista Carr

During a Canadian parliament Finance Committee hearing Krista Carr, the CEO of Inclusion Canada, which is a national federation of people with disabilities, stated that:

People with disabilities are now very much afraid in many circumstances to show up in the healthcare system with regular concerns because often MAiD is suggested as the solution to what is considered to be intolerable suffering that happens to be caused by some of the things that this committee addresses like poverty and the situations that people with disabilities disproportionately find themselves in compared to other Canadians.

This is explosive testimony from Krista Carr that she shares without prompting. Parliament must protect people with disabilities and all Canadians accessing healthcare.

Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law allows medical professionals to offer euthanasia rather than only discussing the topic when people ask about it.

Contact your Member of Parliament to bring this issue to their attention.

If you have a story about feeling pressured to consider euthanasia (MAiD) please contact info@epcc.ca

The International disability rights community is concerned with Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sarah Ritchie reported for the Canadian Press on June 19, 2025 that Canada's Liberal government is giving no sign if it intends to amend existing legislation on medical assistance in dying — something a UN committee called for earlier this spring.

On March 21, 2025; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee’s Concluding Observations on Canada’s Disability Rights Record report was released. Among the many recommendations, Sections 19 and 20 of the UN Committee report outlined their response to Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law. (Link to the report).

Section 20 of the report urged the Canadian government to:

(a) Repeal Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including the 2027 commencement of Track 2 MAiD for persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness”;

(b) Not support proposals for the expansion of MAiD to include “mature minors” and advance requests;

Ritchie explains that the report stated:

“(T)he concept of ‘choice’ creates a false dichotomy, setting up the premise that if persons with disabilities are suffering, it is valid for (Canada) to enable their death without providing safeguards that guarantee the provision of support,”

Canada's federal government has scheduled to allow euthanasia for mental illness (alone) beginning in March, 2027. A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) that was tabled in the House of Commons in February, 2023 called for an expansion of euthanasia to include children "mature minors" and patients with mental illnesses and that patients with dementia be permitted to make an advance request for euthanasia.

Ritchie reported that The federal minister responsible for disabilities spoke at a hearing of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last week, about two months after the committee called on Canada to repeal the 2021 law that expanded eligibility for assisted dying to those whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable.

According to Ritchie Government Minister Patty Hajdu stated:

“It’s about, for me, making relationships in this space and making sure that I have a really strong connection with the community, which I think is really important to be a good minister,” she said in an interview after the speech.

Her address did not cite the committee’s report, which was released in late March as the federal election got underway.

A spokesperson for Minister Hajdu said the government thanks the committee for its report. Ritchie reported a spokesperson as stating:

“MAID is a deeply personal choice. We will make sure that the rights of persons with disabilities are upheld and protected,” said Jennifer Kozelj.

Ritchie restated that the report said that the committee is “extremely concerned” about Canada’s policy on track 2 medical assistance in dying.

Disability rights groups in Canada have argued the law singles out people with disabilities who are suffering because they’re unable to access proper support. Ritchie reported:

Last September, Inclusion Canada was among a group of organizations that filed a Charter of Rights challenge against what’s known as track 2 MAID.

In court documents, they argued the law “allows people with disabilities to access state-funded death in circumstances where they cannot access state-funded supports they need to make their suffering tolerable.”

The organization’s CEO, Krista Carr, said she wants to see Ottawa deliver an action plan on implementing the recommendations in the UN report.

“It was crystal clear — the United Nations said they need to repeal track 2 medical assistance in dying,” she said.

Garnett Genuis, the Conservative employment critic, also attended the UN event. Ritchie reported:

Genuis is worried about Canada’s international reputation being harmed by what he called Ottawa’s. “failures to uphold our obligations to protect the rights of people with living with disabilities.”

“There is a lot of concern internationally within the disability rights community about what’s happening in Canada around euthanasia and people living with disabilities,” he said.

Richie asked other federal Ministers and received these responses:

The offices of Health Minister Marjorie Michel and Justice Minister Sean Fraser did not say whether Ottawa is considering changes to the assisted dying law as a result of the report.

A spokesman for Michel cited strict eligibility requirements and “multiple robust safeguards” in the current law.

Ritchie reported on why Canada expanded its euthanasia law, and it's effect.

Canada’s medical assistance in dying law was updated in 2021 after the Quebec Court of Appeal found that limiting access to people whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable amounted to discrimination.

The federal government opted not to take that ruling to the Supreme Court, and instead changed the law to broaden eligibility.

The latest annual report on medical assistance in dying shows that 622 of the 15,343 people who had an assisted death in 2023 were part of that track 2. They included 210 people who self-identified as having a disability.

More articles on this topic:

• 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).

‘Abandoning People’: Canada’s Broadening Euthanasia Law Dangerous for the Vulnerable.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Epoch Times published an investigative report on August 24, 2022 by Peter Wilson concerning Canada's broadening euthanasia law titled: Abandoning People. Wilson states:

Canada’s broadening medical assistance in dying (MAiD) law has already harmed the country’s most vulnerable and will continue to do so unless amended, say critics of the legislation.

Wilson spoke to several experts and begins his report with comments by myself. Wilson states:

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Canada, says there are many recent cases that showcase this point. He cites the case of a woman who says she was suffering from long COVID.

Alex Schadenberg

“Because she’s not able to work, she’s finding out that she can’t live in her home anymore. She can’t afford it. So she’s saying that if things don’t turn around for her soon, she’s applying for euthanasia,” says Schadenberg, author of the book “Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Another case, he says, is a woman living with a chronic disability in Victoria, B.C., who turned to MAiD due to insufficient health care.

“She has been unable to get treatment for her symptoms. So she’s been trying to go to the U.S. for treatment, but she doesn’t have enough money for that. But she’s been approved for euthanasia,” he said.

Wilson reports on the original Canadian law and explains that the law was amended by Bill C-7 in March 2021. He writes:

In 2021, the federal government passed Bill C-7, which amended the law to remove the requirement that patients have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible.

In March 2023, patients whose only serious medical condition is a mental illness will also be eligible for MAiD.

Dr Ramona Coelho

Wilson interviewed Dr Ramona Coelho a family physician who works with many people with disabilities. Wilson reports:

Coelho told The Epoch Times about 71-year-old Ernest McNeill, who was admitted to a hospital after a fall. He was isolated from his family for a long time due to COVID-19 restrictions and contracted an infectious diarrheal illness while in hospital.

“The staff made very inappropriate comments about him,” said Coehlo, adding that McNeill “felt quite sad about it and he was in a lot of pain.”

“Someone on the [hospital] team raised the idea [of] medical assistance in dying [and] that he would qualify and told him all about it,” she said.

The health-care staff quickly diagnosed McNeill with a severe case of bronchitis, called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which Coehlo said McNeill didn’t know he had.

“But he trusted them,” Coehlo said. “So he basically accepted his death based on a diagnosis of COPD when he was acutely sick and feeling terrible.”

When presenting to the House of Commons Special Joint Committee on MAiD last May,  Coehlo stated:

“Was MAiD raised because his admission was longer than expected as a result of his being a victim of ageism?” asked Coelho. “Did he choose MAiD because his acute care team made him feel horrible? His family believes so.”

The London Free Press published an article by Coelho in July explaining why Canada's euthanasia law is the most permissive in the world.

Wilson then writes about our discussion about Roger Foley, a man who was urged by medical staff to consider euthanasia. Wilson reports:

Schadenberg raised the story of Roger Foley, a London, Ont., man who in his early 40s was offered MAiD by hospital staff without having requested it and was even told he would pay extraordinary hospital fees if he continued his long hospital stay.

Roger Foley

Wilson further reports on Foley's experience:

Foley, who suffered from an incurable brain disorder that practically paralyzed him, recorded audio clips of health-care workers at the hospital offering him MAiD and released them to CTV News in 2018.

“How are you feeling, Rog? Are you feeling like you want to harm yourself or anything like that?” asked one worker at the London Health Sciences Centre. “You can just apply to get assisted—if you want to end your life.”

Another worker told Foley it would cost him “north of $1,500 a day” to remain in hospital.

Foley refused MAiD and was eventually granted his original wish to receive home care. But Schadenberg said Foley’s story is just another example of MAiD causing health-care workers to “abandon” their patients.

Wilson then reports on the military veteran who is living with PTSD who was told he should consider MAiD. Wilson wrote:

The anonymous veteran told Global News that the recommendation was completely unprompted and that he “felt betrayed and disgusted by the suggestion.”

Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said the incident goes to show the inevitable consequences resulting from Canada’s MAiD law.

“This is for all the politicians who said the lack of safeguards wasn’t an issue,” Genuis said on Twitter. “You were warned. Repeatedly.”

Conservative MP Michael Cooper called it “yet another instance of abuse under the Liberals MAID regime,” adding that “vulnerable Canadians are being put at risk.”

The euthanasia lobby group, Dying With Dignity didn't acknowledge that people are being coerced to die and Health Canada told Wilson that:

Canada has “a high bar for accessing MAID” through “eligibility criteria” and “safeguards” set forth in the law.

Wilson then points out the massive growth in the number of euthanasia deaths in Canada. He wrote:

Canada’s assisted suicide rates have been steadily rising since legalization. Health Canada’s “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada,” from 2021, showed that 10,064 instances of MAiD were provided that year, an increase of 32.4 percent compared to 2020.

The 10,064 MAiD deaths in 2021 accounted for 3.3 percent of all deaths in Canada that year.

Wilson ends the article with his interview with me. Wilson wrote:

“The rise is continuing, whether it continues at that rate or it slows down,” said Schadenberg. “The fact of it is, MAiD is already the sixth-leading cause of death in Canada,” Schadenberg said. “And so will it go much higher than that?

Links to more stories of the euthanasia abuse in Canada:

• Veterans affairs worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD (Link).
• Shopping for doctor death in Canada (Link).
• Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she can't access medical treatment (Link).
• Euthanasia for disability and poverty (Link).
• Euthanasia for Long Covid and poverty (Link).
• Canada's MAiD law is the most permissive in the world. (Link).

Garnet Genuis MP: Without amendments, euthanasia Bill C-14 "will protect no one."

Garnett Genuis is the Member of Parliament from Sherwood Park / ­Fort Saskatchewan.

Garnet Genuis

I want to be clear that I do not believe in an all-or-nothing approach. Many of my colleagues and I who have broad philosophical concerns about what is happening here are still willing to vote in favour of legislation that does not re-criminalize euthanasia, if it advances positively in the direction of saving some lives, especially minimizing the risk to vulnerable persons. However, this legislation does not contain meaningful safeguards. Without amendment, it will protect no one.

We know that this law has written exceptions. However, it has exceptions to the exceptions; and may I say it has exceptions to the exceptions that are not at all exceptional?

This legislation has a requirement for the provision of written consent. However, if people cannot provide written consent, someone else can do it on their behalf.

This legislation prescribes a waiting period. However, the waiting period does not apply in the event of possible imminent death or loss of capacity.

There is so much ambiguity here.

The government has said that mental illness is excluded. However, in section 241.2(2) the legislation clearly states that physical or psychological suffering qualifies a person to seek premature death.

The legislation says that death must be “reasonably foreseeable”. May I say that death is reasonably foreseeable for all of us? It is those who think that death is not reasonably foreseeable who probably need the medical attention. Why not put in the word “terminal”? When I was learning to drive, my mother thought that death was “reasonably foreseeable” every time we got into the car. That is no criterion.

There is a requirement that two physicians sign off. However, given the huge ambiguities, obviously doctors are likely to have a wide range of interpretations of the rules. The estimates are that there are 77,000 physicians in this country, and the likely practice of doctor-shopping will ensure that people who think they meet the wooly and ambiguous criteria can somewhere find two physicians.

The member for Victoria said earlier today that this is something doctors do every day. No, it is not. Doctors do not take lives every day. This is fundamentally different from the normal practice of medicine. When we have so many different doctors and opinions to choose from, these are not effective safeguards.

Given these five comically ridiculous exceptions to the exceptions, there is no doubt that detailed provincial legislation or regulation will be required in every case. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me what this law is supposed to accomplish.

Further, there are two key areas where the prevailing rules under this law would leave us demonstrably worse off than the Carter ruling alone.

First, there is a terrifying clause in this bill, which states that if someone kills someone else but can demonstrate, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that he or she had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied then that person cannot be penalized. We can find that at 241(6). Therefore, we can kill someone who did not consent and escape prosecution on the basis of reasonable but mistaken belief. Whatever is done, I implore the government to take this very dangerous section out. This is going even beyond the Belgian model.

Second, this legislation provides no protection for conscience rights, despite the court's clear statement that nothing in this decision required particular health care practitioners to be involved, and despite the clear assurance of the Canadian Medical Association that access does not require taking away section 2 conscience rights.

This legislation constitutes a perfect storm. Ambiguous criteria, no advance legal review, no conscience protection, and allowances for doctor-shopping are not meaningful safeguards at all. The bill leaves patients, seniors, the sick, and the disabled vulnerable to error and systemic abuse. We have seen this in Belgium before. I have quoted the studies during questions and comments. We do not want to go down this road in Canada at all. . . .

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on May 2, 2016.