Uruguay follows Canada's lead by legalizing Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

I have bad news. Uruguay has legalized euthanasia.

Uruguay's Senate passed a euthanasia bill today that was previously passed in August in the Lower House. 

Sadly, Uruguay's passed a euthanasia law that is similar to Canada's law.

According to the Associated Press article:

The legislation permits euthanasia, performed by a healthcare professional, but not assisted suicide, which involves a patient self-administering a lethal dose of prescribed medication.

Unlike laws in U.S. states, Australia and New Zealand restricting euthanasia to those with a life expectancy of no more than six months or a year, Uruguay sets no time limits. It also not does require a waiting period, and allows anyone suffering from an incurable illness that causes “unbearable suffering” to seek assisted death, even if their diagnosis is not terminal.

Similar to Canada, the person who is killed is not required to be terminally ill and there is no waiting period, which means that once approved a person can have a same-day death. The Associated Press also reported that:

Uruguay requires that those seeking euthanasia to be mentally competent.

Although the law does not outright ban euthanasia for those with mental conditions like depression, it requires that patients get two doctors to rule that they are psychologically fit enough to make the decision.

Unlike Belgium, Colombia and the Netherlands, Uruguay will not allow euthanasia for minors.

Sadly Uruguay has followed Canada's lead.

Uruguay needs to know that the number of euthanasia deaths in Canada have skyrocketed as Canada's loosely defined law has allowed euthanasia based on poverty, homelessness and an inability to obtain medical treatment.

Last year, a report from the Ontario Chief Coroner's MAiD Death Review Committee found that there around 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths in Ontario alone from 2018 to 2023. 

The MDRC Committee also reported on a man in his forties who had been "involuntarily hospitalized" on mental health grounds who died by euthanasia after reacting to a Covid-19 vaccination. The post-mortem found "no pathological findings".

A recent report from the MDRC committee stated that:

A frail woman in her late 80s with dementia received MAID after a family member “brought forward” a request for an assisted death, a new report reveals.

The woman’s life was ended after a MAID provider deemed the woman had given her final expressed consent to proceed, based on her ability to repeat a question and squeeze the provider’s hand.

Euthanasia is legalized to prevent suffering, but it results in the abandonment of people at their greatest time of need. What is needed is to properly care for people, not kill them.

Hopefully Uruguay will reverse this decision in the near future.

Euthanasia (MAiD) - Compassion or Neglect?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Euthanasia is abandonment.

The Toronto Star, one of Canada's most liberal newspapers, published an opinion article by Andrew Phillips on October 7 titled: What’s behind these MAID decisions — compassion or neglect?

Phillips, a Toronto Star staff columnist, examines some of the stories from the recent reports from the Ontario Coroners committee that examines the (MAiD) euthanasia reports in Ontario. Philips writes:

Should our public health care system end the life of a man who requests an assisted death mainly because he’s distraught and lonely following the death of his wife? Or a woman who is morbidly obese, refuses all treatment and says she’s lost the will to live?

What about an elderly woman who’s suffering from dementia, whose request to die is brought forward by a family member, and whose final consent for assisted dying involves “squeezing the provider’s hand?” Or a man in his 80s, also diagnosed with dementia, who has been assessed for medical assistance in dying (MAID) while suffering from delirium?

All these cases are included in two recent reports from the MAID Death Review Committee released by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. Together they raise troubling questions about the decision-making that goes into approving some of the deaths under Canada’s system of assisted dying.

The first report is the review committee’s look at MAID deaths in Ontario during 2024. It addresses the case of a man in his 70s identified as “Mr. C,” who had an essential tremor, a condition that caused his hands to shake.

He was grieving the death of his wife and the tremor “impacted his esteem and self-confidence.” According to the report he “had not been able to create a new life path with meaningful relationships and a sense of purpose … He requested to access MAID due to same.” Some members of the committee worried that his request for MAID “appeared to be primarily motivated by social withdrawal, grief and hopelessness.”

Then there’s Mrs. A, the morbidly obese woman who refused treatment. MAID assessors said her condition could improve with treatment, but they decided her death was “reasonably foreseeable” because she would not accept it and approved her for an assisted death.

Is that compassion, or neglect?

The second report focuses on the 103 people in Ontario who accessed MAID in 2023-24 while suffering from dementia.

The most troubling case is that of “Mrs. 6F,” a woman in her 80s admitted to hospital with “moderately advanced dementia.” A family member told her care team that the woman had expressed a “wish to die,” but after discussions with a MAID provider she decided to move into long-term care.

Four months later a family member again initiated a request for MAID on her behalf. According to the report, Mrs. 6F was assessed by a MAID provider in the presence of a family member. She attempted to sign the consent form but her signature was illegible. A “third-party signer” was engaged to do it for her.

On the day of the procedure, “final express consent was determined based on Mrs. 6F’s ability to repeat the consent question and via squeezing the provider’s hand.”

Some members of the death review committee were clearly troubled by all this. Did Mrs. 6F fully realize what was going on? Was her final consent to her own death properly obtained? Was there family pressure for her to agree to MAID?

In the case of “Mr. 6D,” the man in his 80s who was assessed for MAID while suffering from delirium brought on by an abdominal infection, some committee members raised the obvious question. Can informed consent truly be obtained while someone is in the midst of an acute health situation? “These members noted that Mr. 6D’s decision-making may have been influence by potentially reversible functional impairments associated with his delirium.”

The language is impersonal and detached but behind it is a very real concern among some professionals who are very familiar with the system that something is going quite wrong.

It’s true that the great majority (95.9 per cent) of MAID cases involve people whose deaths are “reasonably foreseeable” and who are suffering from terminal conditions, mainly cancer. Cases like those of Mr. C and Mrs. 6F are comparatively few and far between — which is precisely why the review committee took such a close look at them.

But given the stakes involved — literally life and death — every case is vital.

If the public health system we all have a stake in is killing people because they’re just lonely or troubled, that’s something we should all care about. And if even a few people are being ushered out when there are real questions about whether they’ve fully agreed to what’s happening, that’s even worse.

It’s not just about their “choice.” It’s about what kind of system we’ve all chosen.

It is good that Phillips is honest and calls it killing, because that is what it is. 

Phillips should not feel so sure that the 95.9% of the MAiD deaths that are based on a terminally ill person who are "suffering" are not problematic. Even the case of the woman who was obese and refused treatment was classified as one of the 95.9% since she was classified as having a death that was reasonably forseeable.

Nonetheless, Phillips and the Toronto Star have done a great service to truth by publishing this article that outlines some of the outcomes of legalizing medicalized killing.

Links to more articles on this topic:

• How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link). 
• Euthanasia for Canadians who are not terminally ill (Link). 
• Canadian with dementia euthanized at family's request (Link). 
• Dementia patient died by euthanasia, Family made the request (Link). 
• There were around 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024 (Link).

How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable:

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr. Ramona Coelho, who 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); wrote an important article concerning the most recent report MDRC report that was published by the MacDonald Laurier Institute on October 2, 2025.

As stated already, the Ontario MDRC Committee examines euthanasia (MAiD) reports in Ontario and have published several reports outlining the actual experience with euthanasia in Ontario. Coelho explains the recent MDRC report that examined euthanasia for dementia and compares that report to the previous reports that looked at evaluating incurability, same day euthansia deaths, and euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.

Coelho begins her article by outlining Canada's euthanasia law and then she explains some of the information from the MDRC reports by writing:

This week, the Ontario Chief Coroner’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) released its latest report. The MDRC reviews selected provincial cases, and the committee, whose members have diverse viewpoints, contributes expertise to help the Chief Coroner formulate recommendations to clinicians and public authorities. As a member of the MDRC and a physician who cares for marginalized patients, I have serious concerns. Social vulnerability—poverty, housing insecurity, insufficient accommodations, and, in my view, systemic discrimination—combined with a superficial approach to alleviating suffering, can lead to MAiD deaths. The MDRC cases illustrate what the disability community has highlighted from the beginning—that people can be driven to choose MAiD not by their medical conditions, but by system failures, leading to the conclusion that their suffering is unbearable. Barriers to palliative care, inadequate home supports, and discriminatory attitudes send patients the message that their lives are less valuable—and that MAiD may be their most accessible option.

Coelho explains the significance of the latest MDRC report that looked at euthanasia for dementia:

The latest report focuses on dementia. While dementia cases comprise a small number of MAiD deaths, they elicit more family concerns. Consider these cases: one man with Alzheimer’s and delirium received MAiD during an acute illness while facing long-term care placement after losing his caregiver. In another case, family members raised MAiD requests on behalf of a patient with advanced dementia. These highlight the risks of coercion in an already vulnerable population. The patient with advanced dementia was assessed in a single meeting with family present, with only a limited evaluation of cognitive impairments documented. In general, informed consent is often impossible in such situations. Yet in this case, MAiD was administered.

Coelho then assesses the findings in the recent report:

In my view, similar patterns emerge across cases: capacity assessments can be inadequate, requests are sometimes accepted based on fear of future suffering rather than current suffering, and neglect—not medical decline—can drive both suffering and the administration of death. Clinician bias, where disability or cognitive decline is equated with diminished worth, creates an environment in which life-ending decisions can be made without sufficient scrutiny or attempts to address suffering. The MDRC report found that only 13.6 percent of dementia patients who died by MAiD received palliative care beforehand, meaning most never accessed treatments proven to ease suffering linked to fears that often fuel the wish to die.

Coelho then compares the report on dementia to the previous report on evaluating incurability:

Consider last month’s report: Mrs. A, isolated, severely obese, depressed, and disconnected from care, refused treatment and social support but requested MAiD; instead of re-engaging her with care, clinicians deemed her incurable because she refused all investigations, and her life was ended. Mr. B, a man with cerebral palsy in long-term care, voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, leading to renal failure and dehydration; he was deemed eligible for Track 1 because his death was considered “reasonably foreseeable.” No psychiatric expertise was consulted despite psychosocial distress. Mr. C, a man in his seventies with essential tremor, requested MAiD primarily due to emotional suffering and bereavement. In my view, Mrs. A’s case illustrates how assessors may deem suffering irremediable without an accurate prognosis or appropriate care; determinations of incurability must never be based on patient neglect. Mr. B highlights that clinicians can seemingly allow for broad interpretations of “reasonably foreseeable natural death,” while Mr. C demonstrates that essential tremor, though incurable, does not usually constitute a serious decline, and his suffering was largely due to bereavement. While Health Canada provides guidance on what constitutes a grievous and irremediable condition, incurable or irreversible decline in capability, and reasonably foreseeable natural death—including stating that someone cannot refuse all treatments to render themselves eligible for MAiD—there are no straightforward medical definitions, allowing MAiD clinicians broad interpretive leeway with seemingly no consequences to date.

Coelho further compares the recent report to the April MDRC report that examined same day euthanasia deaths:

In April 2025, MDRC reports highlighted how assessments can be rushed and MAiD given in place of palliative care. Mrs. B, in her 80s, preferred palliative care, but adequate support, such as hospice, was denied. Instead, she underwent MAiD the same night her spouse, overwhelmed by caregiver burnout, urgently contacted the MAiD coordination service. Similarly, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, was euthanized under a waiver of final consent after he no longer recognized the MAiD provider, yet no effort was made to re-engage him to determine if he was still suffering or wanted to die before the lethal infusion was administered. Another patient, Mr. C, deemed to have lost capacity by his treating team, was roused and nodded in response to questions; this was considered sufficient evidence of capacity, and MAiD was administered.

Coelho provides information on an earlier report that looked at euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.

Cases from Track 2 MDRC reports, involving patients outside the end-of-life context, also reveal systemic failures, which I have previously written about in this forum. Individuals with complex medical, mental health, and social needs—including untreated psychiatric conditions, disabilities, trauma, and unsuitable housing—ended their lives through MAiD. Access to essential supports was limited. Patients were more likely to be poorer and women—groups already facing social injustice—and were less likely to name family as next of kin, often relying instead on friends, lawyers, or healthcare providers, highlighting isolation.

Coelho ends her article by outlining the lack of oversight and writes:

MAiD is often framed as a matter of individual choice. But autonomy is compromised when people lack housing, palliative care, disability supports, or protection from coercion. What appears as “choice” can be masked despair, shaped by systems that frequently fail. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in March 2025, found Canada’s MAiD regime discriminatory and ableist. While MAiD was meant to relieve intolerable suffering when no alternatives remained, it instead puts vulnerable people at risk, becoming a path of least resistance when barriers to care exist, preying on fear of being a burden and often overlooking supports that could genuinely alleviate suffering.

I have always stated, in the past, the problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide (MAiD) is that concerns the killing of people and Canada's law permits doctors and nurse practitioners to kill people at a vulnerable time in their life. 

Shouldn't care come before euthanasia (MAiD)?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

On August 29, 2025; I published an article concerning euthanasia approvals for patients who have refused treatment in Ontario (Article Link).

On September 10, 2025, an article by Dr Ramona Coelho that was publised by National Newswatch examined the same issue. Coelho, who is a Member of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee; (MDRC) Ontario, asks the question: Shouldn't care come before MAiD? Coelho writes:

Some Canadians who receive medical assistance in dying (MAiD) do not receive the care needed to relieve their suffering. Lives are ended because treatments are denied or deemed optional for people in crisis. MAiD, which is both assisted suicide and euthanasia, has become a possible substitute for care. Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee’s (MDRC) latest report, Evaluating Incurability, Irreversible Decline, and Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Death, highlights an observation I have made for a long time—the human cost of inadequate medical and social supports. The committee holds diverse views, I share my perspective as a member.

Health Canada guidelines do not permit a patient being approved for euthanasia specifically because they have refused treatment. Coelho explains:

Health Canada clarifies that “irreversible decline” means a severe loss of function, and a person can only be considered incurable if there are no reasonable and effective treatments available. They explicitly state that individuals cannot refuse all treatments to render themselves incurable, and thereby qualify for MAiD.

Coelho outlines several cases from the recent MDRC report:

Consider Mrs. A: isolated, severely obese, depressed, and disconnected from care; she refused treatment and social support but requested MAiD. Instead of re-engaging her with care, MAiD clinicians deemed her incurable because she refused all investigations, and her life was ended.

Or Mr. B: a man with cerebral palsy in long-term care, he voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, leading to renal failure and dehydration. He was deemed eligible under Track 1 because his death was consequently considered “reasonably foreseeable.” No psychiatric expertise was consulted despite signs of psychosocial distress.

Or Mr. C: a man in his 70s with essential tremor, whose MAiD provider documented that his request was mainly driven by emotional suffering and bereavement.

The case of Mrs. A illustrates how some assessors may deem suffering irremediable while failing to establish an accurate prognosis or provide appropriate care. In my view, determinations of incurability must never be based on patient neglect. Similarly, Mr. B, who refused food and drink yet was deemed eligible under Track 1, highlights the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) long-standing guidance that permits broad interpretations of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” (RFND), allowing Track 2 patients to qualify under Track 1 when they refuse interventions that cause a deterioration in their health. For Mr. C, essential tremor is incurable but does not usually cause a serious decline in capability. All these practices appear to contradict guidance from Health Canada.

Coelho continues

Sadly, many MAiD deaths are driven by untreated suffering: isolation, feelings of being a burden, and lack of care. Ableism and ageism play a role, with some assessors judging certain lives as less worthy of living. Disability is often equated with illness, yet disabled individuals are members of a community recognized under the UN human rights standards, and their community faces systemic barriers. Too often, MAiD decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, relying on an outdated medical model of disability and overlooking how lived experience, lack of support, and systemic factors contribute to broader societal inequities that perpetuate disadvantage for people with disabilities.

Coelho concludes by stating:

In March 2025, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities condemned Canada’s MAiD expansion as inherently discriminatory and ableist. Among its findings, it called for genuine oversight to prevent abuse and an immediate repeal of Track 2, including the expansion to mental illness as the sole criterion of eligibility scheduled for 2027.

Canadian oversight is sorely lacking, failing to implement enforceable standards and raise public awareness of human rights transgressions. In British Columbia, internal government documents recently included a briefing note with a recommendation against strict MAiD oversight to avoid discouraging providers amid “high demand.” This raises serious questions about whose interests are being served in the provision of MAiD.

Canada’s legal safeguards are failing. Federal guidelines are being ignored. The public deserves to know: Is Canada building a system that truly protects all Canadians—or one that expedites death for the vulnerable?

Previous article by Dr Ramona Coelho: (Articles Link).

Canada euthanasia reports: Rushing to Death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario Death Review Committee (MDRC) published two new reviews of Ontario MAiD (euthanasia) data between 2018 - 2023. The two MDRC reports focus on (Waivers of Final Consent), (Navigating Complex Issues Within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions).

The first three MDRC reports (Report 3) (Report 2) (Report 1) were released in October 2024. I have included three articles about these reports.

• Article 1: Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link).
• Article 2: Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion (Link).
• Article 3: Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Link).

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho, who is a member of the MDRC Committee wrote an article concerning two reports that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on April 7, 2025. Coehlo writes:

Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, encompassing both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Initially limited to those nearing their natural death, eligibility expanded in 2021 to individuals with physical disabilities, with eligibility for individuals with mental illness in 2027. Parliamentary recommendations include MAiD for children. A recent federal consultation explored extending MAiD to those who lack capacity via advance directives, an approach Quebec has already adopted, despite its criminal status under federal law.

Despite its compassionate framing, investigative journalists and government reports reveal troubling patterns where inadequate exploration of reversible suffering – such as lack of access to medical treatments, poverty, loneliness, and feelings of being a burden – have driven Canadians to choose death. As described by our former Disability Inclusion Minister, Canada’s system at times makes it easier to access MAiD than to receive basic care like a wheelchair. With over 60,000 MAiD cases by the end of 2023, the evidence raises grave concerns about Canada’s MAiD regime.

Coelho writes about the scope of the MDRC reports:

I am a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC). Last year, the Chief Coroner released MDRC reports, and a new set of reports has just been published. The first report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner, Waivers of Final Consent, examines how individuals in Track 1 (reasonably foreseeable natural death) can sign waivers to have their lives ended even if they lose the capacity to consent by the scheduled date of MAiD. The second, Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions, includes cases where MAiD was provided on the same day or the day after it was requested. These reports raise questions about whether proper assessments, thorough exploration of suffering, and informed consent were consistently practised by MAiD clinicians. While MDRC members hold diverse views, here is my take.

Coelho discusses: Rushing to death, Ignoring Reversible Causes of Suffering:

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mrs. B, in her 80s, after complications from surgery, opted for palliative care, leading to discharge home. She later requested a MAiD assessment, but her assessor noted she preferred palliative care based on personal and religious values. The next day, her spouse, struggling with caregiver burnout, took her to the emergency department, but she was discharged home. When a request for hospice palliative care was denied, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service for an urgent assessment. A new assessor deemed her eligible for MAiD, despite concerns from the first practitioner, who questioned the new assessor on the urgency, the sudden shift in patient perspective, and the influence of caregiver burnout. The initial assessor requested an opportunity for re-evaluation, but this was denied, with the second assessor deeming it urgent. That evening, a third MAiD practitioner was brought in, and Mrs. B underwent MAiD that night.

The focus should have been on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs. B and her spouse. Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation. Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor’s and Mrs. B’s concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse’s burnout.

The lack of adequate palliative care and the pressure from the spouse led to Mrs B's euthanasia death. Even though the first assessor indicated that Mrs B wanted palliative care, which reflected her personal values, she not only died by euthanasia, but her death was expedited.

Coelho assesses other factors.

The report also has worrying trends suggesting that local medical cultures—rather than patient choice—could be influencing rushed MAiD. Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable. This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards.

Coelho points out how same-day or next-day deaths are more prominent in Western Ontario, she also suggests that the speed of death is being prioritized over the care of the patient.

Coelho then examines the issue of consent. Euthanasia was sold to Canadians as being for: Competent adults who freely choose and consent to the act. The Waivers of Final Consent report creates concern as to whether people. 

Coehlo focuses on two stories to outline her concerns about MAiD without Free and Informed Choice

Consent has been central to Canadians’ acceptance of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, some cases in these reports point to concerns already raised by clinicians: the lack of thorough capacity assessments and concerns that individuals may not have freely chosen MAiD.

In the waiver of final consent report, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, had been approved for MAiD with such a waiver. However, by the scheduled provision date, his spouse reported increased confusion. Upon arrival, the MAiD provider noted that Mr. B no longer recognized them and so chose not to engage him in discussion at all. Without any verbal interaction to determine his current wishes or understanding, Mr. B’s life was ended.

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.

Coehlo outlines how these cases do not ensure free choice nor informed consent.

These individuals were not given genuine opportunities to confirm whether they wished to die. Instead, their past wishes or inquiries were prioritized, raising concerns about ensuring free and informed consent for MAiD.  As early as 2020, the Chief Coroner of Ontario identified cases where patients received MAiD without well-documented capacity assessments, even though their medical records suggested they lacked capacity. Further, when Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Medicine, testified before Parliament about MAiD frequently occurring without capacity, an MP dismissed her, advising Parliament to be cautious about considering seriously evidence under parliamentary immunities that amounted to malpractice allegations, which should be handled by the appropriate regulatory bodies or police.  These dismissive comments stand in stark contrast with the gravity of assessing financial capacity, and yet the magnitude is greater when ending life. By way of comparison, for my father, an Ontario-approved capacity expert conducted a rigorous evaluation before declaring him incapable of managing his finances. This included a lengthy interview, collateral history, and review of financial documents—yet no such rigorous capacity assessment is mandated for MAiD.

Coehlo concludes her article by asking - What is Compassion?

While the federal government has finished its consultation on advance directives for MAiD, experts warn against overlooking the complexities of choosing death based on hypothetical suffering and no lived experience to inform those choices. A substitute decision-maker has to interpret prior wishes, leading to guesswork and ethical dilemmas. These cases highlight how vulnerable individuals, having lost the capacity to consent, may be coerced or unduly influenced to die—whether through financial abuse, caregiver burnout, or other pressures—reminding us that the stakes are high – life and death, no less.

The fundamental expectation of health care should be to rush to care for the patient, providing support through a system that embraces them—not rush them toward death without efforts to mitigate suffering or ensure free and informed consent. If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.

Some previous articles by Dr Ramona Coehlo:

• Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures (Link)
• Discrimination driven deaths (Link).
• Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
• Canadians with Disabilities are Needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).