Euthanasia doctors refuse to share the killing curriculum with Canada's parliament

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 5, 2026 I had the opportunity to speak before the Parliamentary MAiD Committee that is examining the expansion of Canada's euthanasia law to include people with the sole criteria of mental illness. Presenters are only given 5 minutes, so I presented on the need for Canada's parliament to do a full review of the euthanasia law.

The Parliamentary Committee is examining and making recommendations as to whether or not Canada should permit euthanasia for mental illness alone beginning on March 17, 2027. Prime Minister Carney has stated that he will institute the recommendations of this report.

Meagan Gillmore published an article for Canadian Affairs on June 4, 2026 concerning the fact that (CAMAP) the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers have refused to share the euthanasia training curriculum with the parliamentary committee. 

Gillmore explained that on April 14, the Parliamentary Committee agreed to ask CAMAP to share it's euthanasia training curriculum but CAMAP has not only not shared it's killing curriculum with the Parliamentary Committee, it has indicated that it will not share the curriculum.

Remember, CAMAP has been receiving more than 3 million dollars per year from the federal government to develop it's killing curriculum. Based on this reality, one would think that the federal government, in some way, actually owns the killing curriculum.

Gillmore reports why CAMAP has said no to providing the curriculum:

The module about MAID and mental disorders is a live online class, making it impossible to provide the committee with a copy of the curriculum, the association told Canadian Affairs in an email. 

CAMAP does not intend to make its curriculum public, the association also said.

“CAMAP recognizes that there is significant public interest and ongoing discussion regarding MAID and mental disorders,” CAMAP’s email says. 

“However, the purpose of the curriculum is not public advocacy or public education; rather, it exists to support health-care professionals in understanding and applying the existing legislative and clinical framework within their practice.”

This is a ridiculous response. The euthanasia for mental disorders module is only done online, so why can't they share a recording of this online class?

Why can't the Parliamentary Committee receive the guidelines for how CAMAP is supporting health-care professionals in killing people within the framework of their practice?

So what is CAMAP trying to hide?

There has also been significant criticism of the killing curriculum. Catherine Frazee, a disability leader and academic, who was part of the CAMAP curriculum team, resigned, along with two other members, based on serious problems with the killing curriculum. Gillmore reports:

Three resigned from a working group that developed a curriculum module to assess how vulnerability can impact MAID requests. In interviews with Canadian Affairs, they raised concerns that the curriculum ignored how homelessness and loneliness could impact a person’s MAID request. They also expressed concern that the MAID curriculum discouraged health-care providers from challenging patients’ negative views about their disability. 

The curriculum “presumes that disabled people’s lives are not just harder, but plausibly unlivable,” Catherine Frazee, an academic who resigned from the working group, wrote in an article published in an academic journal in April.

Gillmore stated that CAMAP shared the outline of topics but not the curriculum from each of the 8 killing training sessions. 

So why can't CAMAP share the curriculum with a Parliamentary Committee?

What does CAMAP have to hide?

How much money did the federal government give CAMAP to develop a killing curriculum?

Just to put the icing on the killers cake, last month Gillmore wrote about the CAMAP curriculum team members who had resigned, for an article that was published by Canadian Affairs on May 5, 2026. Gillmore reported Catherine Frazee outlining a few concerning cases:

In one case, a homeless, 19-year-old man with cerebral palsy who was fleeing an abusive home was approved. In another case, a young man with disabilities was approved after expressing fear that he would never have a family of his own.

Catherine Frazee

Gillmore explains why Frazee is concerned with the outcome of Canada's euthanasia law.

 Most assessors did not appear bothered by these cases, says Frazee. 

“It was that lack of hesitation or doubt that really troubled me,” said Frazee.

The curriculum included a fictitious scenario about a mother of young children who was recently paralyzed because of a spinal cord injury. The woman said she wanted MAID because she did not want someone to help her use the bathroom. 

The working group said that the woman’s distress over needing help from others was a personal value and should not be questioned, Frazee said.

Frazee was concerned that there was no discussion about challenging a patient’s negative attitudes about living with a disability. 

Frazee resigned from the CAMAP curriculum team in August 2023 when her suggestions for change were simply denied.

CAMAP’s killing curriculum, that they have refused to share with a Parliamentary Committee, is funded by Health Canada and accredited by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the Canadian Nurses Association.

The Canadian government needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law. Canada's euthanasia law is dangerous and insane.

Ontario report: Euthanasia approvals for patients refusing treatment.

Psychological concerns were also paramount.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee (MDRC) released it's fifth report on August 25, 2025. The MDRC is a body of the Ontario Coroner's Office that is composed of 16 people who are charged with examining Ontario euthanasia reports that may have concerns.

The reports from the MDRC committee concern people who have already died by euthanasia.

Meagan Gillmore wrote an article that was published by Canadian Affairs on August 27 examining the most recent report concerning euthanasia deaths on patients who had refused treatment, or had psychological concerns.

Gillmore begins her article with the story of Mr. C:

A widowed, elderly man with a body tremor was approved for medical assistance in dying (MAID) despite loneliness and poor self-esteem motivating his application, a new report from Ontario’s chief coroner’s office says.

The man, called Mr. C in the report, had an essential tremor, which causes uncontrollable shaking, often of the hands. Tremors are incurable neurological conditions, but not fatal.

Mr. C’s tremors had made it difficult for him to participate in hobbies and social activities. A widower in his 70s, he “did not perceive that he had much to offer in a new relationship” because of the tremor, the report says.

Mr. C said he “experienced profound hopelessness and loneliness” and could not find meaningful relationships or fulfillment after his spouse’s death. His MAID provider noted he applied because of bereavement and emotional suffering.

He was approved for Track 2 MAID, which is MAID for people whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable.

Mr. C is one of three individuals profiled in a new report by Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee, which examines how MAID assessors interpret the legal eligibility criteria for MAID.

Gillmore explains that:

Guidance released by Health Canada in 2023 says a patient and doctor must together decide if a patient’s condition is incurable, after considering available treatments and the patient’s overall health and values. Patients are not required to try treatments, but must be informed of means to relieve their suffering.

The guidance says a person cannot make themselves eligible for MAID by refusing all or most available treatments.

The most recent report from the MDRC raises concerns that people are being approved even when it is unclear why they refused all treatments. Gillmore then writes about Mrs A:

In one case, a woman in her 60s was approved for MAID after declining every treatment offered to treat her obesity and related chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes and depression.

The woman, called Mrs. A, was approved for Track 1 MAID, which is MAID for people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

In the years before her death, Mrs. A refused offers of health care and stopped taking her medications because she “no longer had the will to live,” the report says.

Her MAID assessors believed she would improve with proper health and home care. They offered her weight loss surgery, medication and disability supports. She declined everything, saying they would not help her.

The MDRC committee were divided on Mrs A. Gillmore reports:

Some committee members said Mrs. A should not have been eligible for MAID because she declined all treatments. Some also said it was not clear whether the MAID assessors had determined why she refused treatments.

“MAID legislation requires more than a respect for autonomy, it also mandates the application of clinical expertise to ensure that reasonable care options are considered,” they said.

Other members said Mrs. A’s MAID assessors respected her autonomy and that refusing treatment is a personal decision.

Gillmore states that the report uncovers "ableist concerns" concerning the term "irreversible decline in capability:

Health Canada’s guidance helps MAID assessors determine if a patient has an “irreversible decline in capability.”

According to the guidance, the decline in capability does not need to be related to symptoms of an illness or disability. It can include decreased job opportunities or ability to participate in meaningful activities.

Gillmore then reports on the case of Mr B.

The report tells the story of a man in his 60s, known as Mr. B, who had cerebral palsy and had lived in long-term care for several years.

Mr. B “expressed profound psychological suffering and loneliness,” the report says, which increased when he moved to long-term care.

He used a wheelchair, but was able to push it, transfer out of his chair and toilet himself. He was scared that he would lose those abilities as he aged.

Six to eight weeks before his MAID death, Mr. B voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. The report does not say why or whether MAID assessors tried to determine his reasons for doing so.

In approving him for Track 1 MAID, his assessors said Mr. B’s death was reasonably foreseeable because he had stopped eating and drinking and had signs of kidney failure. His dependency on others showed he was in an “irreversible state of functional decline,” the assessors said.

In other words, Mr. B. stopped eating and drinking to be approved for Track 1 MAiD. Track 1 MAiD is for people who have a terminal condition. There is no waiting period for Track 1 MAiD.

The MDRC committee were divided on Mr B. Gillmore reports:

A few members did not think Mr. B’s dependency and need for long-term care fulfilled that criteria. Needing help is part of many disabilities, including cerebral palsy, they said.

“Framing such dependency as evidence of an irreversible decline in capability potentially risks introducing an ableist perspective, wherein inherent disability-related needs are mischaracterized as functional decline that is aligned with an irreversible trajectory, rather than a person’s basic care needs,” these members said.

The report also raised concerns about unmet psychological needs influencing MAID requests. Gillmore explains:

Currently, the law prohibits eligibility for MAID on the basis of a mental health condition alone.

Gillmore comments on the reports findings concerning psychological suffering.

Yet, Mr. B’s MAID assessors noted his suffering was “primarily psychosocial and existential.” Several committee members said he should have had a psychiatric assessment to determine whether he was suicidal.

Members also said a psychiatric assessment would have helped determine Mrs. A’s MAID eligibility. If she had declined, the MAID practitioner would have had to say that her eligibility could not be determined.

The Ontario’s ministry of the solicitor general told Gillmore:

MAID requests have become more complex since 2021 when the federal government removed the requirement that someone’s death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for MAID.

“The interpretation of illness and function of decline are more challenging for MAID assessors and providers to evaluate,” the statement says.

The MDRC committee were divided MAiD for psychological reasons. Gillmore reports:

A few members of the committee said current MAID practices need to be re-evaluated.

They said clarity is needed about whether a person’s refusal of routine treatments or food and water qualifies them as being in an irreversible state of decline.

These members also said further guidance is needed about how to assess a decline in capability when a person’s disability means they always depend on others for some care.

Gillmore ended the article by stating:

There were 4,958 MAID deaths in Ontario in 2024; coroners’ investigations were started in 299 — or six per cent — of these cases, the office of the solicitor general said in its statement. Five investigations are ongoing.

Previous article: Canada euthanasia reports: Rushing to Death (Link).