Showing posts with label Loneliness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loneliness. Show all posts

Thursday, August 13, 2026

Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba
By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

Saturday, June 13, 2026

Register for the next Compassionate Community Care - Visitor Training Program on June 17/18.


Kathy Matusiak Costa
Register for the free online Being With My Story Visitor Volunteer Training program on taking place on June 17 and 18. Learn how to  be an effective caring visitor of people in your community.
 
Register online (Registration Link).

The online training is provided by Compassionate Community Care (CCC) and is co-hosted by CCC Executive Director, Kathy Matusiak Costa and Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director.

Alex Schadenberg
Gain the confidence to journey with people in your community who are lonely, socially isolated, sick, or dying, to renew their hope and purpose to live until they die.
 
The Training Workshop is composed of two sessions, each session is two hours held on: 
Wednesday June 17 (7 pm - 9 pm) (EST)
Thursday June 18 (7 pm - 9 pm) (EST)
With Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care, and Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

Register online now: (Registration Link)
 
Compassionate Community Care: 
383 Horton St. E, London, ON N6B 1L6
Office: 519-439-6445 
info@beingwith.org • www.beingwith.org

CCC Helpline: 1-855-675-8749
 
Charitable registration # 824667869RR0001

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

How Euthanasia Is Rewriting the Ethics of Medicine

The following letter by Dr. Ramona Coelho was published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in February 2026.

Dr Ramona Coelho
Dr. Coelho is a Family Physician; a Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Member of Medical Assistance in Dying Ontario (MAiD) Death Review Committee (MDRC).

 
Dear Editor,

Recent BMJ commentary has suggested that Canada’s assisted dying regime involves robust independent assessment and that coercion is not a meaningful concern[1], despite alarms raised by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[2] and government oversight reports[3]. A key question is whether introducing assisted dying into medicine is adversely altering clinical practice. Assisted dying is often framed as patient autonomy. Yet this framing minimizes how Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) reshapes clinical reasoning, professional responsibility, and interpretations of suffering. Under Canada’s Criminal Code, MAiD is exempt from homicide and assisted suicide offences[4]. Supporters argue this reflects compassionate care. However, legal authorization does not eliminate ethical complexity. Instead, it transfers these judgments into clinical decision-making, where legal categories do not easily align with clinical paradigms.

Societal discourse frequently describes MAiD as a last resort. Yet it has become a leading cause of death in Canada, reflecting normalization within clinical pathways rather than exceptional use[5]. MAiD is fundamentally different from other interventions. It is irreversible, cannot be titrated for benefit, and targets the person, not the disease-process[6].

Advocates often emphasize intolerable physical suffering. However, Canadian reports show that MAiD frequently arises from social and systemic harms rather than strictly medical pathology. Emotional distress, loneliness, fear of being a burden, and loss of independence are commonly reported drivers of MAiD requests[5]. These reflect profound social failures.

MAiD eligibility requires clinicians to assess whether illness is grievous and irremediable, whether death is reasonably foreseeable, and whether the patient has capacity and is acting voluntarily[4]. These judgments may shift clinical focus from treatment and advocacy toward procedural confirmation of eligibility for death.

Oversight reports have identified cases in which patients were deemed eligible not because treatments failed, but because treatment was refused or unavailable[3]. When lack of access to care is interpreted as irremediability, MAiD risks functioning as a response to system failure rather than disease progression.

Interpretations of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” vary among assessors. Some clinicians consider a five-year prognosis sufficient[7]. Others accept patient decisions to stop eating, drinking, or accepting treatment as evidence of foreseeable death[8]. In such contexts, deterioration can become self-fulfilling evidence of eligibility.

Capacity assessment also raises concerns. Reports describe assessments occurring under clinically questionable conditions, including fluctuating cognition, heavy sedation, or minimal psychiatric evaluation[3]. These cases illustrate how clinical norms shift when assisted dying becomes routine rather than exceptional.

Policy structure may also influence clinical behaviour. Canadian guidance encourages clinicians to discuss MAiD proactively and for objecting clinicians to provide referrals[9]. These systems can streamline access, and patients may be funnelled toward more permissive MAiD providers.

When assisted dying becomes a predictable endpoint for complex suffering, it narrows clinician tolerance for uncertainty and complexity. It weakens the obligation to remain with patients through suffering.

This is concerning in a health system with gaps in palliative care, community supports, and disability services. When social and medical supports are unavailable, assisted death may become a structurally shaped choice rather than a voluntary one.

Many MAiD providers act in good faith. The concern is not only individual intention, but that systems shape clinical behaviour. When death is offered alongside, and sometimes before, comprehensive care, medicine drifts from its commitment to healing and accompaniment through suffering.

Assisted dying does not simply end lives. It risks reshaping clinical priorities and professional identity. Medicine is built on the obligation to remain with patients through uncertainty. Compassion in medicine requires more than offering a path to death. Inserting assisted dying into medicine, especially with critical gaps in care, reshapes medicine in response to system failures rather than solving them.

References:
1) BMJ. Patients are coerced to live, rather than die – assisted dying around the world [video]. YouTube. 14 Feb 2026. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMydoyef3Yc&t=11s [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

2) Shannon D. UN committee rightly calls out Canada’s systemic devaluation of disability. Macdonald-Laurier Institute. 9 Jun 2025. Available: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/un-committee-rightly-calls-out-canadas-syste... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

3) Coelho R, Shannon D, Lemmens T. Safeguard failures in Canada’s MAiD system. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. Published Online First: 27 Jan 2026. doi: 10.1136/spcare-2025-006046

4) Canada Department of Justice. Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). 2023. Available: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

5) Coelho R. Disabled Canadians should never feel compelled to die: let’s give them the support they need to live. Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Jan 2026. Available: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/disabled-canadians-should-never-feel-compell... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

6) Chochinov HM, Fins JJ. Is Medical Assistance in Dying Part of Palliative Care? JAMA. 2024 Sep 11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.12088.

7) Pesut B, Thorne S, Sharp H, et al. Assessors’ decision-making regarding applicant eligibility for Track 2 medical assistance in dying in Canada: a qualitative study. CMAJ 2026;198:E1-E9. doi:10.1503/cmaj.251071.

8) Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers. The interpretation and role of “reasonably foreseeable” in MAiD practice. Feb 2022. Available: https://camapcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Interpretation-and... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

9) Health Canada. Model practice standard for medical assistance in dying (MAID). 2023. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-syst... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho:

  • Disabled Canadians should never be compelled to die (Link). 
  • How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link).
  • Shouldn't care come before euthanasia (Link). 
  • Legislative and practise problems in Canada's MAiD regime (Link).

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Canadian doctor warns Britain not to legalize assisted suicide.

To the UK, I offer this warning: do not open Pandora’s box

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Mark D'Souza
Mark D'Souza, a Canadian physician and author, was published by Conservativehome on December 24, 2025 with an article titled: A warning from Canada on euthanasia - do not open Pandora's box.

D'Souza, a former palliative care physician who left the field of palliative medicine based on his concerns related to the lack of conscience rights states that:

Canada’s embrace of euthanasia has transformed from a supposed “rare and exceptional” measure into a dystopian nightmare.

What begins as a compassionate act inevitably morphs into a witch’s brew of moral ambiguity, economic incentives, and quiet coercion. Once the legal door opened, it quickly became apparent that for the activists driving the agenda, the revolution would not stop there.
D'Souza explains that once Pandora's box is opened the 'bait and switch' begins.
Canada’s journey began with the passage of Bill C-14 in 2016. This was neatly branded under the Orwellian doublespeak term of “Medical Assistance in Dying”, or MAiD for short; a name so sanitized, you might mistake it for a home-cleaning service.

At the time, the law restricted euthanasia to individuals whose deaths were “reasonably foreseeable.” The vagueness of this definition was intentional, leaving room for interpretation. Four years later, Bill C-7 removed even this restriction, permitting euthanasia for those whose deaths were not imminent. The next frontier – euthanasia solely for mental health conditions – has been temporarily delayed, but how long until it resurfaces?
D'Souza then covers the massive increase in Canada's euthanasia deaths:

In less than a decade, Canada has found something else to dominate besides ice hockey: euthanasia. In 2023, 4.7 per cent of Canadian deaths (15,427) were due to assisted suicide – just shy of the Dutch at five per cent – but we boast the fastest-growing euthanasia program in the world. Only 3.5 per cent of requests are declined, and with criteria so broad, poverty and homelessness now seem like valid justifications.
D'Souza must have written this article before Health Canada released the 2024 euthanasia data which indicating that:
The 2024 report indicates that there were 16,499 reported (MAiD) euthanasia deaths which was up by 6.9% from 15,427 in 2023. The 2024 report indicates that 5.1% of all Canadian deaths are euthanasia.

From legalization until December 31, 2024 there were 76,475 MAiD deaths in Canada. Considering that it is now at the end of November 2025, it is likely that there have been at least 92,000 MAiD (euthanasia) deaths in Canada since legalization. Based on the 2024 report there were at least 3,800 people who listed loneliness and isolation as a primary reason for being killed.
D'Souza then comments on euthanasia for loneliness and other concerns:
Lonely? Sign up today! Half of non-terminally ill applicants cite loneliness. Disabled or struggling with mental health? You’re encouraged to enroll. Even Canada’s prison system is in on the action. And in our public-only healthcare system, where patients languish on wait lists instead of receiving actual care – and where financial and housing supports are often non-existent – is ending your life truly an autonomous decision? It’s as if the government is saying if you can’t live with dignity, at least you can die with “dignity.”

Ominously, physicians in my province of Ontario are legally required to omit any reference to euthanasia on death certificates, instead listing the underlying condition as the cause of death. The state’s Ministry of Truth enforces the fiction that these patients died naturally. Where in history has government-mandated linguistic misdirection to obscure uncomfortable truths ever ended well?
D'Souza then comments on the the goals of the death lobby:
Make no mistake: activists have always had grander ambitions. Even at the inception of Canada’s euthanasia program, they wanted access for minors and disabled infants, and advance requests for dementia. These were dismissed as alarmist speculation – until they weren’t. Just recently, Quebec approved advance requests for dementia.

What endgame do they envision? On-demand euthanasia, as commonplace as ordering from McDonald’s? Would you like fries with that?
D'Souza continues by commenting on the financial incentive to kill:
The economic pressures are undeniable. It’s estimated that euthanasia will save up to $139 million in precious healthcare dollars. (The Nazis also calculated government savings when people with disabilities were euthanized.) With an aging population, strained healthcare budgets, and intergenerational tensions over inheritance, euthanasia is quietly being smuggled in as a release valve for these societal challenges.
D'Souza then comments on the values that lead to uncontrolled euthanasia.
But at its core, this issue is a profound battle of values. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing, euthanasia activists often present themselves as paragons of compassion. But their definition is shallow. They claim to champion the downtrodden, suffering, and vulnerable. Yet true compassion demands depth. It means guiding addicts to detox and recovery, providing suffering individuals with palliative care and social supports, and creating the economic conditions whereby people can lift themselves out of poverty–not simply offering them a prescription for death.

In Canada, the values imposition became evident early on. When doctors objected to participating in any part of the euthanasia process on moral grounds, the activists insisted on “effective referrals,” which meant signing off on the procedure. It wasn’t enough for conscientious objectors to provide a patient’s chart or refer them to a hotline.
D'Souza then warns doctors of what happens to the medical system.
The message was clear: you must agree with us or face professional repercussions. That freedom of conscience is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was meaningless. This drive to enforce ideological conformity revealed the movement’s true nature. In 1984, Orwell suggested that it’s paramount for authoritarian regimes to control their subjects’ perceptions.

The field of medicine itself is being reformatted away from its foundational principle of “do no harm”, as well as the explicit forbidding of taking a life in our Hippocratic oath. This is part of a wider trend of medicine, where even this millennia-old oath has been rewritten to make medicine about social justice activism. Consequently, the patient’s well-being becomes subservient to the state’s moral vision.

As death cafés where people talk about death spring up around the world, and death doulas have become a profession, it looks like tradition is fighting a losing battle.

But re-engineering medicine’s ethical foundation wasn’t enough – the next step was to rebrand death itself. Activists teamed with the utilitarian Canadian government to romanticize death with first-rate marketing. Something that was until recently criminal has suddenly become accepted as a default moral position. To name just a few examples, euthanasia was briefly advertised in an urgent care waiting room, and Canadian fashion retailer Simons produced a glossy cinematic tribute to the assisted suicide of a woman in her thirties. (The Nazis, too, had their own propaganda films normalizing euthanasia.)
D'Souza continues by commenting on the pressure to expand killing.
But what starts as existential autonomy soon transforms into societal expectation. “Last resort” is where it starts, but I guarantee this is not where it ends. Give the activists an inch and they will take a mile.

Britain proposal includes a multidisciplinary panel representing law, psychiatry, and social work. That is a significant safeguard, but not a foolproof one. Even such luminaries can be bullied by activists who moralize dissenters as cruel and uncaring. The superficial social and emotional levers of control belong to the activists, and are very difficult to counter outside of a thorough debate.

As healthcare resources grow scarcer and societal narratives portray the elderly and disabled as burdens, euthanasia becomes less of a choice and more of an expectation. This is where the right to die will have transformed into a duty to die.
D'Souza ends his article with a final warning to the UK:

To the UK, I offer this warning: do not open Pandora’s box. Euthanasia is not merely a medical procedure; it is a profound shift in how society values life. Say no to state-sanctioned death. Because once you start down this path, there is no turning back, and inevitably the slippery slope gives way to freefall.
Thank you Dr Mark D'Souza for your excellent article.

Previous article by Dr Mark D'Souza (Article Link). 

Monday, June 16, 2025

The Health Impacts of Seniors' Loneliness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the past, The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) was a strong promoter of Canada's euthanasia law and expansions of that law, but a new CARP initiative tackling Seniors Loneliness is worthwhile. In a recent update on Seniors' Loneliness CARP states:
Social isolation is a serious issue when it comes to seniors and a signal of a dysfunctional society. It’s estimated that almost 30% of Canadian seniors live alone – and without strong community connections, many of these seniors suffer silently from loneliness and depression.

Loneliness can impact physical and mental well-being. Isolation can lead to depression, which in turn can further exacerbate health issues. For example, depression in older adults is tied to a higher risk of cardiac diseases. At the same time, depression reduces an older person’s ability to recover from illness.

Depression is not a typical part of aging. Yet it is estimated that 20% of older adults experience symptoms – like persistent sadness, loss of interest in activities, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness and even suicidal thoughts – and rates increase up to 40% for those in hospitals and long-term care homes.

These numbers are a warning sign of a public health crisis hiding in plain sight. The World Health Organization recently named loneliness a global health priority, urging countries to take action. And the science is clear: chronic isolation is more harmful than smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
While CARP is promoting their initiative to counter Senior's Loneliness, I want to reiterate my support for the Compassionate Community Care charity that also focuses on reducing Seniors' Loneliness.

While CARP has strongly promoted euthanasia (MAiD) in the past, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes how loneliness can lead to requests euthanasia. Many people who are living with difficult health conditions also feel lonely, feel hopeless and begin to believe that they have no further reason to live. 

Instead of offering these people death, they should be offered support from a caring community who reasures them that they are important and that they still have a reason to live.

Contact the Compassionate Community Care charity (CCC) to join the Visitor Training program or become trained to provide advocacy for your family members or people who you know. CCC also provides a calling service for contacting lonely seniors who simply need someone to talk to or someone to listen.

Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Study: Suicide risk increases with loneliness and depression.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on March 26, 2025 looked at 3,764,279 Korean adults who are living alone. The study found that depression or anxiety was associated with a significantly higher risk of suicide, particularly among middle-aged individuals (aged 40 to 64 years) and men.

This is significant since people who live alone with depression or anxiety are also more likely to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Canada's Fifth Annual MAiD Report found that there were 15,343 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2023 with 4.1% of these deaths being (Track 2) people who did not have a terminal condition. For those who had a terminal condition (Track 1) 21.1% listed isolation and loneliness as a reason for their suffering and for those who did not have a terminal condition (Track 2) 47.1% listed isolation and loneliness as a reason for their suffering.
(Figure 3.6a)

The Korean study found:

In this national cohort study of 3 764 279 individuals, we examined the association between living arrangements, depression, anxiety, and suicide risk. Our study yielded 3 primary findings: (1) individuals with depression or anxiety living alone were associated with an increased risk of suicide, (2) the highest risk was observed in individuals living alone with both depression and anxiety, and (3) males and individuals aged 40 to 64 years living alone with depression or anxiety faced the highest suicide risk. These findings remained consistent after adjustments for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors, as well as across different follow-up periods, highlighting the combined association of living arrangements and mental health conditions with suicide risk.
In Canada, The National Institute on Aging (NIR) released a report on December 5, 2023 titled: Understanding the Factors Driving the Epidemic of Social Isolation and Loneliness among Older Canadians.

Based on the Canadian data almost 3,400 Canadians who died by euthanasia in 2023 listed loneliness and isolation as a reason for their suffering. I have stated in the past that the data on loneliness and isolation, in the euthanasia report, is low, since many people who are living with difficult health conditions will list other concerns, even when loneliness and isolation are prime reasons for their request.

When comparing the Canadian data to Canada's euthanasia data, at that time, I stated:

Loneliness and isolation are key issues for people who are considering death by euthanasia. When I have discussed the reasons with someone who is considering euthanasia or has already been approved for euthanasia, the discussion most often is about feelings of loneliness, isolation, depression or feelings of hopelessness.

More articles concerning loneliness:

  • 41% of older Canadians experience loneliness (Link).
  • Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life (Link). 
  • Loneliness as a root cause for symptom distress among older adults (Link). 
  • A wish to die is most often linked to loneliness and depression (Link). 
  • Study uncovers euthanasia deaths based on loneliness in the Netherlands (Link).

Thursday, January 9, 2025

Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho
Dr Ramona Coelho is a Family Physician; Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Member of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee

Dr Coelho has written an excellent commentary on Canada's experience with euthanasia (MAiD) that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on January 8, 2025

Dr Coelho is commenting on Health Canada's Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying. Coelho writes:

Health Canada’s recently released Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2023 reveals that 15,343 individuals died by MAiD, 622 of them following Track 2. By the end of 2023, the cumulative number of MAiD deaths reached 60,000 – 4.7 per cent of all deaths nationally since the program was launched. The annual growth rate continues to rise significantly, at 15.8 per cent.

Regional reported trends highlight extreme increases in growth, with Quebec experiencing a 36.3 per cent increase, Ontario at 30.3 per cent, and British Columbia at 18.0 per cent. These provinces account for 85 per cent of all MAiD provisions. In Quebec, where only euthanasia is allowed, it accounted for more than 7 per cent of all deaths. Quebec’s government recently commissioned a study to better understand why so many people in the province are resorting to euthanasia.
Canada legalized MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) in June 2016 by creating an exemption in the Criminal Code for homicide or aiding suicide. Coelho mentions that in 2023 there were 15,343 MAiD deaths whereby 5 of the deaths were assisted suicide while the rest were euthanasia.

Some of the MAiD deaths were based on discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports and social care. Coelho explains:
Supporters of MAiD often cite autonomy and compassion as validations for the practice. However, as a society, we cannot ignore the troubling reality that, for many individuals, the desire for assisted death can often reflect systemic failures: discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports, and social care.

Even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which filed the Carter case that led to the 2015 decriminalization of physician-assisted suicide in Canada, has now expressed concerns about the misuse of MAiD. They acknowledge reports of individuals being offered MAiD in circumstances that might not meet the legal criteria, as well as cases where people may resort to MAiD due to intolerable social conditions, and have asserted that they will hold the government accountable.
Suffering was not necessarily related to physical suffering.
As the Health Canada report cites, the overall drivers of intolerable suffering include loneliness and isolation (21 per cent for Track 1 vs. 47 per cent for Track 2), emotional distress, anxiety, fear, or existential suffering (39 per cent for Track 1 vs. 35 per cent for Track 2) and a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers (45 per cent for Track 1 vs. 49 per cent for Track 2). It is deeply troubling that loneliness, the fear of being a burden, and general fear are leading people to choose death. All of these issues should be addressed with better care, not with the provision of death. When people lack timely access to adequate health care, housing, or proper support – or even simply genuine care and love – offering death as a “choice” is not compassionate, it can be a form of neglect.
Euthanasia in Canada is often presented as an option when the person is at their lowest. Coelho explains:
Consider patients in palliative care. Cancer patients, for instance, often face significant barriers to accessing mental health support and proper symptom management. How can a request for MAiD be free and informed when better support isn’t available? Alarmingly, Health Canada suggests that health care providers should consider proactively raising MAiD as an option, but this approach raises serious ethical concerns. Are we genuinely prioritizing care, or are we normalizing death as a default?

This tension illustrates how systemic neglect can muddy the waters of autonomy. When cases of euthanasia are documented for persons whose pain is poorly managed, or whose care is inadequate, is the decision to request MAiD truly autonomous? When feeling like a burden, or when loneliness or fear of prolonged suffering are the factors driving the decision, the choices are not made in true freedom but are borne of anguish and desperation, reflecting the reality of unmet needs. These dynamics demonstrate that suffering can distort autonomy and can turn MAiD into the result of systemic failures rather than an expression of true choice.
Euthanasia is not a type of medical treatment.

MAiD does not align with medicine’s core purpose and has been incoherently integrated into medical practice. As Harvey Chochinov and Joseph Fins argue, medicine is fundamentally about healing, restoration, and tailoring care to address specific conditions. In contrast, MAiD offers no pathway to healing; it ends life, removing the possibility of further care, closure, or recovery. Unlike standard medical practice, which relies on evidence-based guidelines and individualized decision-making to manage symptoms and diseases while minimizing harm, MAiD is legislatively mandated, lacks nuance and adaptability, and serves only to end the sufferer’s life.

This overemphasis on autonomy represents a troubling shift in medical ethics. Autonomous choice, when stripped of adequate support and resources, ceases to be a form of empowerment and instead becomes a hollow justification for abandonment and the exercise of privilege and power over consideration of the common good. By focusing on “choice” while failing to address the suffering that underpins it, MAiD shifts the medical profession’s role from healing to facilitating death.
The expansion of euthanasia affects the nature of medical treatment.
The expansion of MAiD – from individuals who are near the end of their lives to those with disabilities, mental illness (beginning in 2027), and likely soon for those lacking capacity – raises profound questions about how we define medical treatment. Unlike other procedures, performing euthanasia or assisted suicide does not mandate any specialized training, nor are there legislative safeguards ensuring that all of the less invasive or less risky treatments have been thoroughly tried first. This begs the question of whether we are shifting the focus of care from alleviating suffering to merely ending the lives of those who are suffering prematurely.

Engaging in this debate has revealed an interesting dynamic among experts. Mental health professionals often highlight the complexity of their field and the current impossibility of accurately determining whose suffering is truly irremediable. Many argue rightly that MAiD is not an appropriate response to mental illness and advocate for evidence-based care. Disability experts emphasize that their patients often face systemic barriers and unmet needs and that recovery takes time, suggesting that compassion lies in improving support, not offering death. Palliative care specialists stress that end-of-life suffering can be alleviated, provided the resources to provide skillful, holistic care are available, which allows patients and their loved ones to find closure and meaning in their final days. While physical pain can often be effectively managed with medication, the psychological aspects of suffering should be addressed through therapy. Furthermore, choosing death out of fear – whether to avoid future pain, suffering, or material hardships – should be met with compassion and improved support.
The overemphasis of autonomy displaces the core principles of medicine.
This shift from the balancing of ethical principles of medicine to an overemphasis on autonomy reveals a deeper issue: autonomy and choice can displace core principles of healing, patient safety, and alleviation of suffering. Fear, isolation, and a lack of sustained support can make MAiD seem like an appealing option – not because it is the best solution, but because better alternatives are either overlooked due to the limited knowledge or are unavailable and inaccessible.
The report indicates that Track 2 euthanasia deaths (euthanasia for people who are not dying) predominantly affects women and people living with poverty.
According to the Health Canada report, those receiving MAiD under Track 2 were predominantly women (58.5 per cent) and slightly younger than those receiving it via Track 1. Further, the report indicates that proportionally more women than men were living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods (both Tracks 1 and 2). The Health Canada report aims to reassure Canadians by stating that the higher rate of younger women receiving MAiD can simply be linked to, “overall population health trends where women experience longterm chronic illness, which can cause enduring suffering but would not typically make a person’s death reasonably foreseeable.” However, the report fails to mention international research that women are disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence, more likely to receive inadequate medical care, and twice as likely to attempt suicide as men. These women may feel trapped in their suffering, leading them to see euthanasia or assisted suicide as an escape when other supports or interventions are unavailable, effectively replacing suicide prevention efforts with assisted suicide.

Lastly, an unexplained 6.7 per cent of those who died under Track 2 had no fixed address, raising the possibility of housing insecurity, a concern that has recently been underscored in leaked discussions from MAiD practitioner forums. These documented issues highlight that euthanasia and assisted suicide risks preying on systemic neglect and the intersections of gender, poverty, and isolation – conditions that distort the notion of true choice.
The Health Canada euthanasia report seems to promote the position of the euthanasia lobby.
The Health Canada report reads at times like a defence of the MAiD regime, placing greater emphasis on reassuring the public than on sober and fulsome analysis. The report even concludes with what seems like an endorsement for Dying with Dignity’s (DWD) position in a BC court case, which aims to mandate MAiD in all health facilities. The report notes that “institutional objection to MAiD resulting in patient transfers is a fraught issue. Since the legalization of MAiD in 2016, several faith-based hospitals, long-term care facilities, and hospices in Canada have enacted policies to prohibit MAiD from taking place on their premises,” further noting that a relatively high proportion of transfers were made following institutional policies. However, their analysis fails to acknowledge that transfers from facilities with institutional policies are necessary to enable individuals with disabilities to choose care in MAiD-free safe spaces. Further, hospital transfers occur frequently and for a variety of reasons, including patients requiring specialized services. Framing this as a “fraught issue” seemingly reflects ideological bias.
The Health Canada report seems to support removing "safeguards" for euthanasia.
Several disability organizations, supported by the larger disability community, have launched a court challenge to try to limit MAiD. The organizations assert that Track 2 has resulted in premature deaths and an increase in discrimination and stigma towards people with disabilities across the country. While they are not challenging Track 1 in this case, they recognize that it too can pose significant problems for people with disabilities.

Health Canada suggests that even modest delays can interfere with a person’s ability to access MAiD, emphasizing how important it is to avoid hindrances for those seeking it. However, they equally fail to highlight that 41 cases were stopped because external pressures were identified that were driving patients’ requests. In this regard, the report misses a critical point: providers who take the time to deeply understand and address a patient’s suffering may be offering true medical care, even if the patient dies naturally. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, as universal solutions, is a simplistic, cost-effective approach that overlooks the many complexities and challenges that their broad legalization has created.
Coelho completes her commentary by calling for a truly compassionate response.
Compassion does not abandon people to their despair. It does not normalize death as a solution to poorly controlled pain, fear, poverty, loneliness, or inadequate care. It invests in palliative care, mental health services, social support, and community life to make life worth living.

If Canada continues down this path, we are de facto normalizing the idea that some lives are less valuable and less deserving of care and that certain types of people are better off dead. The promise of autonomy can be a front, masking systemic neglect while utilizing the language of choice. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not compassionate solutions if we have failed to meaningfully address the causes of suffering at its root. A compassionate society does not encourage its citizens to choose death simply because it has failed to help them live.
Previous articles by Ramona Coelho:

  • Discrimination driven deaths. Analysing Ontario Coroner Reports on Euthanasia (Link). 
  • Heart wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
  • Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).

Sunday, December 15, 2024

Community of Hope Outreach: Connecting with Seniors Project


Compassionate Community Care is starting a new calling service.

Regular check-ins by phone or Zoom with seniors who may not be able to receive an in-person visitor.

The calling service is for persons aged 55+ who may be socially or physically isolated and are looking for support, or a friendly person to talk to. We are looking for volunteers to make calls and seniors to receive them! Contact us if you are interested.

Calls are available in English and French. Volunteers who are proficient in French are needed.

For more information about the Compassionate Community Care calling service (Information Link).

This project is funded by the Government of Canada’s New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP), which provides funding for projects that make a difference in the lives of seniors in their communities.

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Canada's euthanasia horrors are accelerating.

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

Wesley and Alex last year.
By Wesley J Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn’t as if the truth isn’t coming out. A recent official report by the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario contains many disturbing conclusions that should — but won’t — derail the euthanasia train. For example, a mentally disturbed, suicidal man was euthanized because doctors decided he had a bad reaction to Covid vaccines. From the Vancouver Sun story (my emphasis):
Identified as “Mr. A,” the man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2. He also suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders, and, “while navigating his physical symptoms,” was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, with thoughts of suicide.

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

There were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, though people’s experiences can’t be discounted just because medicine can’t find what’s wrong with them.
In other words, there is a good chance that the poor man was mentally ill and not physically sick.

The report also highlights that some poor people were euthanized because of social isolation or for fear of becoming homeless. From the AP report:
AP’s investigation found doctors and nurses privately struggling with euthanasia requests from vulnerable people whose suffering might be addressed by money, social connections or adequate housing. Providers expressed deep discomfort with ending the lives of vulnerable people whose deaths were avoidable, even if they met the criteria in Canada’s euthanasia system, known nationally as MAiD, for medical assistance in dying.
Here is one of the examples:

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

Committee members couldn’t agree whether her death was justified; some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia. Others argued that “social needs may be considered irremediable” if other options have been explored.
At this point, it is worth recalling that euthanasia legalization changes the general morality of society and its respect for life in very disturbing ways. For example, a poll taken last year in Canada found that 27 percent of Canadians strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness. Good grief!

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

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

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

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Dutch doctors oppose euthanasia for "completed life."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 17, the NL Times reported that the Royal Dutch Medical Association maintained their opposition to euthanasia for "completed life." The NL Times report stated:

Doctors are still opposing a proposal to make euthanasia possible for elderly people who feel their life is fulfilled. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) says there are still too many risks for people in a vulnerable position.

D66 submitted an amended "completed life" bill in November. The bill states that people 75 years of age and older can decide to end their life when they feel they no longer wish to continue living. With the assistance of a new professional, the end-of-life counselor, they would be able to do so.

There are usually complex problems behind suicidal ideation in elderly people, KNMG warns. They mention problems like loneliness, depression, social isolation, financial problems, or a weak socioeconomic position.

The doctors' federation says more attention should be given to these issues. "The facilitating of suicide for the elderly in a vulnerable position is not a responsible or desirable way."

The age limit is also an issue for the KNMG, as it sends a signal "that life for the elderly is worth less than the life of younger people." KNMG expressed similar criticism about an earlier proposal.

The D66 party has been pushing for euthanasia for "completed life" for many years. In the last years general election the D66 fell from 24 - 9 seats. With the loss of political influence for the D66, it is unlikely that euthanasia will be extended to "completed life" any time soon.

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

41% of older Canadians experience loneliness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The National Institute on Aging (NIR) released a report on December 5, 2023 titled: Understanding the Factors Driving the Epidemic of Social Isolation and Loneliness among Older Canadians.

In the media release the NIR stated:

Social isolation and loneliness are becoming increasingly recognized as significant public health concerns, particularly for older individuals, across Canada and around the world. With older persons making up a rapidly growing proportion of Canada’s population, the number of isolated or lonely older Canadians is expected to significantly increase, meaning that both the individual and societal consequences of loneliness and social isolation will likely also become more severe.

The report, Understanding the Factors Driving the Epidemic of Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older Canadians, finds that as many as 41 per cent of Canadians aged 50 years and older are at risk of social isolation and up to 58 per cent have experienced loneliness before. To date, a lack of consistent definitions and measurement scales of loneliness and social isolation have made it challenging to fully characterize the scope of the problem in Canada, which could better enable measures to address it. Using data from the NIA’s inaugural 2022 Ageing in Canada Survey results, the report aims to fill this evidence gap by examining the extent to which both social isolation and loneliness are impacting Canadians aged 50 years and older across 10 provinces, and will continue to do so over the coming decade.

The report found that:

  • 41% of Canadians aged 50 years and older are deemed as socially isolated. On the other hand, only 59% of Canadians aged 50 years and older appear to be somewhat well-connected or have strong social ties.
  • 18% of Canadians aged 50 years and older are very lonely and another 40% are somewhat lonely. On the other hand, 42% of Canadians aged 50 years and older are not lonely.
  • Less than a third (30%) of Canadians aged 80 years and older could be classified as socially isolated... compared to 45% of Canadians aged 50–64 years and 40% of Canadians aged 65–79 years.
  • Among Canadians aged 80 years and older, 9% are very lonely and 38% are somewhat lonely, while 53% are not lonely.
  • On the other hand, among Canadians aged 50-64 years, almost one in four (23%) are very lonely and another 41% are somewhat lonely while only 36% are not lonely.
  • In terms of Canadians aged 65–79 years, 14% are very lonely and 39% are somewhat lonely, while 47% are not lonely.
  • Overall, 63% of Canadian women aged 50 years and older report that they are either somewhat lonely or very lonely, while the share is 53% among Canadian men of the same age.
  • Most concerningly, one in five (20%) Canadian women aged 50 years and older report that they are very lonely. Correspondingly, the share of Canadian men of the same age who are very lonely is 16%.

Clearly loneliness has become an epidemic in Canada. Loneliness and isolation are key issues for people who are considering death by euthanasia. When I have discussed the reasons why someone who is considering euthanasia or has already been approved for euthanasia, the discussion most often is about feelings of loneliness, isolation or hopelessness.

Sadly, the epidemic of loneliness is feeding the euthanasia mentality.

We need a society that recognizes the need for interdependence and places caring for others over killing.

More articles concerning loneliness:

  • Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life (Link). 
  • Loneliness as a root cause for symptom distress among older adults (Link). 
  • A wish to die is most often linked to loneliness and depression (Link). 
  • Study uncovers euthanasia deaths based on loneliness in the Netherlands (Link).

Monday, May 15, 2023

Bioethicists: Euthanasia Okay for ‘Unjust Social Conditions’ in Canada.

This article was published by the National Review on May 13, 2023.

Wesley Smith
By Wesley J. Smith

Once killing the sufferer becomes a societally acceptable means for ending suffering, there becomes no end to the “suffering” that justifies human termination. We can see this phenomenon most vividly in Canada, because it is happening there more quickly than in most cultures. For example, a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.

Euthanasia mutates a society’s soul. I can’t imagine that being true ten years ago before euthanasia became legal.

This kind of abandoned thinking finds enthusiastic, albeit not unanimous, expression among secular bioethicists. In fact, two Canadian bioethicists just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics — a prestigious British Medical Journal publication — arguing that “unjust social conditions” justify lethal jabs (euphemistically called MAiD, for “medical assistance in dying”). The argument claims that killing is a form of “harm reduction.”

The authors even admit such cases have already occurred legally in Canada. From “Choosing Death in Unjust Conditions: Hope, Autonomy, and Harm Reduction” (my emphasis):

In 2022, an individual in Canada, who had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), received MAiD. However, by their own description, their decision to choose MAiD was driven primarily by the fact that they were unable to access affordable housing compatible with MCS. While it was true that they suffered from an illness, disease or disability that caused ‘enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable’ as specified under the eligibility criteria of Bill C-14 [that recently expanded eligibility beyond death being “reasonably foreseeable], the primary source of their suffering was an inability to find appropriate housing, not the condition itself. Another person, also with MCS, writes: ‘I’ve applied for MAiD essentially because of abject poverty’.

Good grief. The patient in question is dead — not because of their medical but housing conditions. And doctors used the physical issues as pretext for justifying the killing as within the law!

The authors approve of allowing euthanasia for reasons of social injustice as a means of “harm reduction.” And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment:

In the case of the availability of MAiD in Canada to people who not only might but have explicitly said they would choose differently if they had access to the options they preferred, we argue that the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.
This, even though Canada’s socialized health-care system is in crisis:
Access to healthcare across nearly all dimensions continues to deteriorate in the wake of the pandemic even outside of long-term and palliative care, from basic care, to surgical backlogs, to a general consensus that the system is in a state of collapse. In this context, refusing options to people who autonomously pursue MAiD amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world. This is a world that currently does not exist and is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Even if it did, it is unfortunately even more unlikely that the people whose current suffering has led them to request MAiD will realise its benefits.
So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”

The authors conclude:
We disagree with any claim that the unjust lack of choices available to people is alone sufficient to undermine their autonomy. Those who launch legal proceedings or request and receive MAiD are unlikely examples of people whose reduced opportunities have led them to lose all hope and motivation for pursuing personally meaningful courses of action. Moreover, neither a reduction of opportunities in itself, nor the existence of oppressive ableist norms, is sufficient to directly undermine autonomy…Restricting an autonomous choice to pursue MAiD due to the injustice of current non-ideal circumstances causes more harm than allowing the choice to pursue MAiD, even though that choice is deeply tragic.
Bioethics is growing increasingly monstrous. And that matters because these are the so-called “experts” who exert tremendous influence on our laws and regulations, in court rulings, over the attitudes of journalists, among the purveyors of popular culture, and, ultimately, upon public attitudes.

Moreover, Canada is our closest cultural cousin. If such a crass death-embracing attitude developed there so quickly with the legalization of euthanasia, it will happen here too — and, indeed, almost all state laws allowing doctor-prescribed death already expanded their guidelines. Which is why, if we want to follow the truly compassionate course, it is a matter of great urgency that we reject all further legalization of assisted suicide in the United States.