Euthanasia advocates have an ideology of illogical ideas.

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

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

The world’s most ardent euthanasia advocates have built an ideology based on totally illogical ideas; like the premise that it’s not bigoted to kill members of a disenfranchised group because they are members of that group. Or, the idea that voluntary euthanasia is not suicide, no matter how permissive the euthanasia program is. Or the proposition that euthanizing homeless people is compassionate rather than bullying and nihilistic. 

The leaders of "Euthanasia Land" like to make up their own facts. I think that this behavior shows what can happen when a person lives their entire life in an upper middle class, able-bodied academic bubble. Such people are used to having their ideas accepted as facts, so they feel free to construct blantantly false narratives.

Perhaps one of the most egregious offenders in this regard is euthanasia advocate James Downar. He seems to like to make up his own facts the way some people like to write poetry or paint.

In August of 2024 Downar posted something on X about euthanasia opponents that is laughably nonsensical. He posted, 

“Worse from my perspective is the rash of "advocacy" groups who only seem focused on blocking MAID laws, but are largely silent on the policy issues that actually affect the health of PWDs and the chronically ill (social supports, vaccines).Curious agenda.”

The absurdity and arrogance of that statement is truly breathtaking. Yes, James Downar, all the disability justice euthanasia opponents-those of us who have published articles in the field of disability studies, those of us who have published books about disability justice, those of us we who have been arrested at demonstrations for care attendant services, those of us working as disability justice attorneys, we who are special education teachers, those of us working to advance the condition of BIPOC people with disabilities, those of us who have spoken to the United Nations about disability rights, we who are disabled and bear the daily brunt of systemic ableism-somehow have done nothing to achieve a better world for people with disabilities. But you, James Downar, an ablebodied, affluent euthanasia devotee, are a disability justice sage!

That’s a totally illogical premise, and Downar is quite bold to articulate such canards. It’s like someone looking at the sky on a clear day and saying that the sky is green. I think this behavior is probably the result of being a wealthy and powerful person: James Downar is used to other powerful people heaping praise on him; which gives him a sense of permission to make fallacious claims.

But, Downar’s propensity to espouse fabrications about the disability rights movement isn’t ethically defensible, and he isn’t actually entitled to attack disability justice advocates with lies while virtue signaling about what a fine upstanding social justice warrior he is.

Euthanasia doctor developed Ontario Covid-19 triage guidelines

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr James Downar, the former chair of the physicians advisory committee for Dying with Dignity, a Canadian euthanasia lobby group, developed the "triage protocol" for doctors who may be forced to make difficult ethical treatment decisions if hospitals become overwhelmed by the Covid-19 outbreak.

Jennifer Yang reported on March 29 that the Toronto Star obtained a copy of the document that is based on rationing critical care beds and ventilators. The document establishes policies concerning life or death choices.

When contacted by Yang for comments, Downar said he was referring all media requests to Ontario Health, which was unable to respond by deadline.

According to Yang, the document states:

The system will be triggered only if local resources have been depleted and every attempt has been made to relocate patients to other facilities that still have capacity. The document acknowledges, however, that “transportation resources will become stretched in a pandemic and this will not always be possible.”

Yang describes the Triage protocol:

Under the triage protocol, patients will be assessed according to both inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those who are excluded from treatment will be patients “who are very likely to die from their critical illness, and people who are very likely to die in the near future even if they recovered from their critical illness.”

At level 1 triage, for example, doctors are advised to exclude patients who have greater than 80 per cent predicted mortality. At level 3, patients with greater than 30 per cent predicted mortality will be excluded. Under the triage protocol, long-term-care patients who meet specific criteria will also no longer be transferred to hospitals.

Patients who no longer meet the criteria for care under the triage system will be removed from life-saving interventions like ventilation or not have them offered, according to the protocol. But this does not mean these patients will stop receiving medical treatment or care. They will also receive “the highest priority for palliative care.”

Decisions as to who will receive treatment and who will not receive treatment are difficult, but the protocol is illegal. In Ontario court decisions have determined that decisions to provide or to stop treatment require the consent of the patient or the patients healthcare advocate. Therefore to remove a patient from life-saving intervention, even with good intention, cannot be done without consent.

Yang then states that patients who are withheld or withdrawn from treatment will receive palliative care. She states:

Patients who no longer meet the criteria for care under the triage system will be removed from life-saving interventions like ventilation or not have them offered, according to the protocol. But this does not mean these patients will stop receiving medical treatment or care. They will also receive “the highest priority for palliative care.”

Yang then concludes the article by stating that the protocol outlines three guiding principles for the triage protocol:

the first being “utility,” meaning physicians should allocate resources to patients who stand to benefit the most. 

The second is “proportionality” — in other words, the number of patients who will be negatively affected by this last-resort triage system should not exceed the number of people who stand to benefit. 

The third principle is fairness, meaning only clinical information should be used to decide which patients are treated over others. “Priority should not be given to anyone on the basis of socioeconomic privilege, or political rank.”

It is sad that the rules for withdrawing treatment are being developed from a utilitarian point of view and without considering the legal ramifications of their decisions.

Canadian euthanasia study offers more questions than answers.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study examining MAID data from Ontario, the largest province in Canada, reports confirms much of what we knew already about euthanasia/assisted suicide deaths worldwide, but the data actually opens questions about the use/misuse of euthanasia in Canada.

Article: Euthanasia deaths rise quickly in Ontario. Nearly 1800 reported assisted deaths in 2019 (Link).

The data indicates that many of those who died by euthanasia were not terminally ill and had decided to die by lethal injection rather than live in a nursing home / institutional setting.

The lead study author, Dr James Downar, is a founder of the Dying with Dignity physicians advisory council and a long-time euthanasia promoter. 

This study will be used to assure politicians that Canada's euthanasia law can be expanded without fear of negative effects to vulnerable groups. It will also be used to undermine the resistance of palliative care doctors to euthanasia.

The data in this study was obtained from the euthanasia reports submitted to the Chief Coroner of Ontario. The reports are submitted by the doctors or nurse practitioners who lethally injected the person. This data was submitted, in a self-reporting system, to justify the act of euthanasia.

Since doctors don't self-report controversial decisions, it is unlikely that comments from these reports will uncover abuse.

Kelly Grant, writing for the Globe and Mail newspaper reported:

Patients who choose medically assisted death are wealthier, younger, more likely to be married and less likely to live in long-term care than those who die naturally, according to a major study of assisted dying in Canada’s most populous province.

The media suggests that this study proves that euthanasia does not negatively effect people who are poor or vulnerable, but in fact this study simply confirms what we have always known that people who are white, wealthy and worried are more likely to die an assisted death.

The study examined the data from 2241 reports from the euthanasia deaths in Ontario between June 17, 2016 and October 31, 2018.

Grant reports on the data in the study:

Patients who received an assisted death were more likely to be wealthy, with 24.9 per cent of MAID recipients earning enough to be in the highest of five income brackets. By contrast, 15.6 per cent of patients who died naturally were in the top income bracket. 

The study found that Ontario MAID recipients were, on average, two-and-a-half years younger when they died, and less likely to have been living in an institution, usually a nursing home, before they died. 

Of those who died naturally, 28 per cent lived in institutional settings, while only 6.3 per cent of MAID recipients did. 

The data in the study indicates that those who died by euthanasia died at age 74.4 (average) whereas those who died a natural death died at age 77 (average). 

Why are people dying by euthanasia 2.6 years younger than those who die a natural death? 

Why are people who die by euthanasia less likely to live in an institution (nursing home etc).

The data suggests that many of those who died by euthanasia were not terminally ill and decided to die by lethal injection rather than live in a nursing home / institutional setting.

Canada's euthanasia law stated that: natural death is reasonably foreseeable, but the law did not define this. It appears that most doctors had a wide interpretation of natural death being reasonably foreseeable.

Those who died by euthanasia stated that they were experiencing physical suffering (99.5%) of the time and psychological suffering (96.4%) of the time. The Canadian law states that physical or psychological suffering "is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable." which is completely subjective.

The study states that:

Psychiatric consultations were performed in 6.2% of cases. In 4.3% of cases, the MAiD recipient had been found ineligible for MAiD on a previous request.

Considering the conditions that people may experience as they approach death, it is surprising that only 6.2% of the MAID deaths had a psychiatric consultation.

The data indicates that people who died by euthanasia had access to palliative care (74.4%) of the time suggesting that people are not asking to be killed due to lack of alternatives.

Grant reported that Ebru Kaya, a Toronto palliative care specialist questioned this assertion:

...“They use this blanket term. Palliative care providers could mean anything. The MAID assessor who is also a palliative care physician may use that clinical encounter to assess for MAID as a palliative care encounter, but the two are very different.”

Similar to previous studies, this study examines data from reports submitted by doctors and nurse practitioners who did the lethal injection. There are no interviews with patients, before they died, to determine why are they asked for death. There are no "third party" reports to ensure that the "letter of the law" was followed.

We do not know why people are dying 2.6 years earlier than those who died a natural death.

It is likely that many of the people were not terminally ill but facing the dilemma of having to live in a long-term care institution because their health condition required care.

I suggest that this study proves that people with disabilities are right. Canadians are deciding that death is preferable to living with a disability.