Disability groups: Open letter opposing assisted suicide

To Prime Minister Andy Burnham and MPs 
(Link to the Open Letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham)

We are writing to call for a halt to the legislative process around assisted dying until disabled and terminally ill people have as much support to live as this bill would provide for us to die.

We are a group of disabled and terminally ill people who agree that the status quo cannot continue. But we believe that the only safe way to reduce suffering at the end of life is to reform the social and palliative care systems before any move is made towards a programme of assisted suicide.

Throughout history, disabled people’s lives have been consistently devalued, and we still experience this in the present on a daily basis. We are constantly fed the narrative that we are burdens, benefit scroungers and that it’s better to be dead than disabled. Not only do some of us internalise these messages, so do many of the people we encounter or rely on for support. Many disabled people have been made to consider suicide — not by the impact of our conditions, but the social context we live in.

Before we can talk about choosing to die, we need real autonomy over how we live our lives. At the moment, sick and disabled people, including terminally ill people, are denied choice over the most basic of things: our ability to get out of bed, wash, eat, leave our houses or manage our pain. This creates a coercive environment where people will choose an earlier death simply because they are being failed by society. Put simply, introducing assisted dying in these circumstances will put sick and disabled people’s lives at risk.

The prime minister is right: we must reform the care system before this bill can be considered and disabled people must be included in the conversation.

We are calling for you to vote No on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and then work with disabled people and our organisations to: Fully fund palliative care to ensure comprehensive and compassionate care is available to everyone who needs it, ensuring no one feels pressured to end their lives simply because they are not receiving the medical help they deserve;

Abolish the social care savings threshold for working-age social care users, so we can save for essentials and major life milestones such as a vehicle or home downpayment without risking our support, and are at less risk of financial coercion. End financial penalties and benefit reductions for disabled people who live with a partner, protecting financial independence and making it easier for those in coercive or abusive relationships to leave safely.

Equalise pay between social care and the NHS, thereby reducing staffing shortages and ensuring sick and disabled people receive professional care from well-trained care workers, vastly reducing suffering during and at the end of life; and
⁠Form a taskforce on independent and supported living, led by disabled people, and set out a time scale for implementing its recommendations within six months of its first report, so that we can move towards a society where terminally ill and disabled people have choices in all areas and stages of life, as well as at the end of it.

We understand the flaws in the current system. No one wants any terminally ill person to suffer unnecessarily at death. But we must protect the lives and rights of disabled and terminally ill people in life. We urge you to hear our voices, understand our fears and work with us to create a system that is safe for all: one that assists us to live.

Sincerely

Lucy Webster, Anna Landre, Jamie Hale, Kyla Harris, and Rensa Gaunt on behalf of The Assist Us To Live campaign 

Lucy Webster, Journalist and Advocate / Assist Us To Live

Anna Landre, Marshall Scholar, University College London / Assist Us To Live

Jamie Hale, Artistic and Executive Director, CRIPtic Arts / Assist Us To Live

Kyla Harris, Filmmaker / Assist Us To Live

Rensa Gaunt, Campaigner / Assist Us To Live

Liz Carr, Actor and Member, Not Dead Yet

Ruth Madeley, Actor

Baroness Jane Campbell of Surbiton, Member, House of Lords and Convenor, Not Dead Yet UK

Rosie Jones, Comedian

Samantha Baines, Actress and Broadcaster

Mat Fraser, Actor and Writer

Sophie Morgan, TV Presenter

Andrew Miller MBE, Cultural consultant & Broadcaster

Samantha Renke, Broadcaster

Mik Scarlet Wallace, Broadcaster and Co-CEO, Phab

Kamran Mallick, CEO, Disability Rights UK

Tracey Lazard, CEO, Inclusion London

Adam Gabsi, Chair, Inclusion London

Ellen Jones, Author

Cherylee Houston, Actor

Victoria Jenkins, Designer

Dr. Nora Groce, Professor, University College London

Dr. Eben Kirksey, Professor of Anthropology, University of Oxford

Catherine Holloway, Professor, University College London and Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub

Dr. Victoria Austin, Professor, University College London

Dr. Maria Kett, Professor, University College London

Natalie Kane, Curator, V&A and Deputy Leader of Lambeth Council, Green Party

Arthur Hughes, Actor

Rick Burgess, Care in Crisis Coalition and DPO Forum Co-Chair

Sarabajaya Kumar, Associate Professor, University College London and Director, Impatience Ltd.

Tracey Jannaway, Director, Independent Living Alternatives

Colin Brummage, CEO, Camden Disability Action

Rachel Charlton-Dailey, Journalist and Author

Cathy Reay, Writer and Journalist

Damian Joseph Bridgeman, Disability Task Force, Welsh Government and Chief Executive, Bridgeman Community Foundation

Selina Mills, Writer and Broadcaster

Shani Dhanda, Accessibility Specialist

Hannah Barham-Brown, NHS GP

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, Care Not Killing

Rachel Gadsden, Artist and Director

Tamm Reynolds, Artist

Dr. David Turner, Professor, Swansea University

Dermot Devlin, DPAC Northern Ireland

David Jones, Professor of Bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham

Peter Gay, Director, Disability Advice Service Lambeth (dasl)

Dr. Kevin Yuill, Professor Emeritus, University of Sunderland

Doug Paulley, Reasonable Access

Natalya Dell, Trustee, Reasonable Access

Tanya Motie, Former TV Executive

Aisling O’Connor, Co-founder and CEO, The Rosie Jones Foundation

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Campaigner

Dr. Amy Kavanagh, Activist

Dr. Louise Hickman, University of Cambridge

Jess Thom, Artistic Director, Touretteshero

Iyiola Olafimihan, Non-Executive Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub and Justice and Campaigns Lead, Alliance for Inclusive Education

Dan Edge, Actor and Access Coordinator

James Moore, Journalist

Natalie Amber, Actor

Elle McNicoll, Writer

Dr. Rob George, Professor, King’s College London

Eleanor Lisney, Director, Sisters of Frida

Jillian Nystedt

Ella Glendining, Filmmaker

Andrew Clark, Chair of Trustees, BuDS Disability Service

Wednesday Holmes, Illustrator and Author

CJ DeBarra, Author and Journalist

Simon Ford, Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Penny Pepper, Writer and Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Carrie-Ann Lightley, Writer

Lou Chandler, Content creator

Isaac Harvey, Disability Advocate

Dr. Calum Miller

Angie Airlie, CEO, Stay Safe East

Clare-Louise English, Director

Dr. Ros Jones, Paediatrician

The British assisted suicide bill is back - And so is Not Dead Yet.

The following message was sent out by Not Dead Yet UK on July 23, 2026.

By now you'll know that the assisted dying bill is back.

On 17 June, Labour MP Lauren Edwards introduced a new version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. MPs will vote on whether it should proceed at its second reading on 11 September 2026. That's less than two months away.

So what's new?

Honestly? Not much.

This is the same bill Kim Leadbeater brought forward in 2024 — the one that spent months being picked apart in the House of Lords, generating more than 1,300 amendments before running out of time in April. The bill fell not because it was defeated, but because Parliament was prorogued. Now it's back, with two minor Lords amendments incorporated.

The first is a technical Wales amendment. Because delivering health services is devolved to the Welsh Government, the bill now requires the Senedd to give its approval before Welsh Ministers can set up the regulations for assisted dying in Wales. It's a constitutional housekeeping change. It doesn't alter what the bill actually does.

The second concerns people with eating disorders. This one is more serious. During the Lords debates earlier this year, peers raised concerns that someone with anorexia could potentially stop eating — deliberately — in order to reach the six-month terminal threshold and qualify for an assisted death. A minor amendment was added in the Lords to address this. But experts who work with people with eating disorders say it doesn't go far enough. The loophole, they argue, remains. We agree.

Everything else about the bill — its safeguards, its eligibility criteria, its scope — is unchanged. The concerns we have always raised remain. Disabled people face cuts to their independence, support, and care. Palliative care is under-resourced. In that environment, telling people they have the option to end their lives early is not compassion. It is a profound risk to people who already feel like a burden.

Even the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has acknowledged this. He has said he supports the principle of assisted dying — but only if hospices are "properly funded and sorted out" first. "You can't have this law change with an underfunded hospice movement," he said. We agree. And that underfunding hasn't been fixed.

What we're doing about it.

We are meeting very shortly to put the final touches to our campaign strategy for September. Our main goals are:

• Persuading MPs to vote against the bill at second reading on 11 September.
• Organising a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on the same day.

We will be in touch with full details as soon as they're confirmed — including how you can write to your MP, join us in person, or support the campaign in other ways.

We know many of you have been with us since the beginning of this fight. Your support matters enormously. We are not done yet.

Defeat of ‘dangerous’ UK assisted suicide bill is just a pause in our fight, say disabled opponents

This article was published by Disability News Service on April 30, 2026.

By John Pring

Disabled campaigners have warned that pressure to push through legislation to allow assisted suicide is sure to continue, even though the “dangerous” and deeply-flawed terminally ill adults (end of life) bill has run out of parliamentary time.

Those supporting the bill in the House of Lords repeatedly lashed out at disabled campaigners and allies who they blamed for blocking the bill, when it was debated for the final time in the House of Lords on Friday.

Because the current parliamentary session ended yesterday (Wednesday), the bill can now not become law, although it is highly likely to be brought back before parliament in the next session, which begins next month.

Disabled peers and others who suggested multiple amendments aimed at fixing the legislation’s many flaws have faced months of attacks in the Lords and the media accusing them of trying to block the legislation by “filibustering”.

Those attacks continued in a bad-tempered final debate on Friday, with the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Labour’s Lord Falconer, and pro-legalisation colleagues, repeatedly attacking a “small minority” of peers who they accused of blocking the bill.

Lord Falconer said he was “despondent” that the bill had failed due to “procedural wrangling”, and said the Lords had “let down” terminally-ill people, while he later described the day’s debate as “horrible” and suggested opponents were responsible for that.

The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, one of the peers who has been targeted by Lord Falconer for her attempts to address flaws in the bill, told fellow peers that many of the amendments she had put forward had been suggested by disability organisations, including disabled people’s organisations, and “disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of the bill”.

She said: “This bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it.”

And she said the fact that Lord Falconer had himself tabled 76 amendments “shows that there is not the confidence that this bill is safe”.

She said: “We have heard much debate today about the damage to [the House of Lords], but I have had thousands of emails to thank us for what we are doing here to unpack the danger that is in the bill.

“I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here and be targeted by so many people who say that we are doing a bad job, but our job is to protect everyone in British society, and this bill does not do that.”

Baroness [Jane] Campbell, another disabled crossbench peer who has been accused of blocking the legislation, said the number of peers who had taken part in debates on the bill “reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability organisations about the risks this legislation may pose to the most vulnerable”.

She said: “I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom – it is risk.

“When the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness.”

She said that organisations with concerns about the bill’s safety included the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability organisations, and the human rights organisation Liberty.

Baroness Campbell added: “Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear: this bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your lordships why it is dangerous for them.

“They fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected, error in prognosis, persistent assumptions about the value of their lives and a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity.”

And she said it was clear that more work was needed before the bill could be considered safe.

She said: “If the bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrate that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve.

“At present, it does not meet that test.”

Not Dead Yet UK, the campaigning organisation that fights attempts to legalise assisted suicide, and which was founded by Baroness Campbell, welcomed the “pause” in the continuing push for legalisation, but warned that the bill would return to parliament.

Phil Friend, convenor of Not Dead Yet UK, said he and fellow campaigners were grateful to the peers who had scrutinised the bill so thoroughly and “found some very serious problems”.

He said: “Many of them were publicly labelled as enemies of democracy – denounced in rallies, criticised in open letters, their constitutional role dismissed as deliberate obstruction.

“Baroness Jane Campbell, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Baroness Ilora Finlay and others did their jobs.

“They took disabled people’s concerns seriously. They deserve our thanks, not our condemnation.

“And we, as disabled people, find it abhorrent that individuals were personally attacked simply for listening to us.”

Friend said the pressure to change the law “will not stop”.

He said: “We knew this was always going to be a long campaign. That hasn’t changed.

“We go into the next battle with stronger networks, a developing strategy, and a growing community of disabled people and allies who understand what is at stake.”

Picture: Members of NDY UK and parliamentary allies in March last year, including Baroness Grey-Thompson (front row, second from right)

Is Mental Illness Irremediable?

This article was published by Amy Hasbrouck on her substack on April 12, 2026.

Without adequate supports, MI under MAiD could be a death sentence.

Amy Hasbrouck

By Amy Hasbrouck

The central question when considering if Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (E/AS) should be allowed for people whose requests arise solely from a psychiatric disability is whether mental illness is irremediable. The answer depends on many factors; the origins, causes and history of the mental illness, the infrastructure in place to support healing, whether the treatment approach is holistic or symptom-focused. Possibly the most important predictor of success is the ability to retain hope that recovery is possible. As a starting point, hope requires trust in the therapeutic relationship, but trust and the hope of recovery are both undermined by allowing E/AS for psychiatric disability alone.

While my physical and sensory disabilities might or might not qualify me for euthanasia under Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime, it is my psychiatric disabilities (mental illnesses) that are most likely to induce me to request euthanasia.

Evolving diagnoses

The day after I graduated from secondary school in 1979, I realized that the “childhood abuse” I had experienced might be connected to the exhaustion, low self-esteem, and depressed mood I had struggled with as far back as I could remember. Since then, I’ve had two hospitalizations, and a series of diagnoses – from depression, to PTSD, to dissociative identity disorder – and I’ve been prescribed at least 15 psychiatric medications. At the moment I’m taking five meds with (unofficial) diagnoses of Complex PTSD,1 Treatment Resistant Depression,2 along with the complicating and compounding effects of ableism.

My experience supports the conclusions reached by Mark Konrad and Catherine Ferrier in their recent article “MAID: No Evidence Base for Futility and Irremediability in Psychiatric Disorders”;3 that “diagnosis and prognosis of mental disorders are unreliable,” and there is an “enormous and nonspecific variety of treatments for mental disorders.”

Origins, Causes and History

Nearly 2/3 (63.9%) of adults report having at least one Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) such as divorce or death of a parent, physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect, or substance abuse by family members.4 Studies have found “a strong relationship between exposure to abuse or household dysfunction during childhood and multiple health risk factors for the leading causes of death in adulthood.” The 17% of adults with an ACE score of four or more (of which I am one) have a “12 times higher prevalence of health risks such as alcoholism, drug use, depression, and suicide attempts,” chronic illness (such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue) and autoimmune disorders (such as Lupus or Crohn’s disease). Yet when I asked my primary care doctor about whether Québec used ACE scores to screen for physical and mental health risks, she didn’t know what I was talking about.

I have been unable to see a psychiatrist to adjust the medications I am prescribed for symptoms of my mental illnesses since I arrived in Canada more than 22 years ago. The meds are only partially effective in managing symptoms related to Complex PTSD and depression, but I don’t know what my official diagnosis is, and despite several referrals, I have never actually spoken to a psychiatrist. I have been referred for counseling twice to professionals who had no background in working with people who have experienced disability discrimination; in one case, the therapist’s insensitivity led me to abandon the sessions, while the other therapist left a few months into the treatment. I have had limited success finding qualified therapists on my own, and I must pay for my own therapy since I do not have insurance aside from the provincial health plan.

Infrastructure for Healing

Physical security promotes healing

For me, successful treatment of mental illness depends on diverse, often intangible elements, some of which I already have in place. I have physical security in that I am lucky enough to have a home, a loving and beloved spouse, and economic stability.5 I have some social support through Adult Survivors of Child Abuse (ASCA), an online community with a focus on recovery from the effects of complex trauma. I am looking for a well-matched, skilled and respectful therapist to work with me on managing my nervous system’s dysregulation and hypervigilance. I am hopeful that someday I may recover some self-esteem and lose some of the chronic depression that drains and immobilizes me. I am aware, however, that my situation is precarious; that I am one setback away from suicidal depression, and that I do not have the full range of supports I need to meet the inevitable hazards of life.

Emotional healing

Healing from complex PTSD is – not to put too fine a point on it – complicated when you also have a disability. The usual feelings of shame and self-blame that come from long-term emotional and sexual abuse were magnified by my parents’ profound discomfort with my blindness. The discovery of my cataracts during a hospital stay for pneumonia at four months precipitated a major domestic crisis (with accompanying violence); my father thought the condition was caused by (and was therefore the financial responsibility of) the treatment I received for pneumonia, while my mother believed that the cataract diagnosis while I was hospitalized precluded the possibility that the oxygen treatment was the causal factor. Regardless, I was expected to keep up with my siblings in household chores, academics and play, even as I was shamed for blindness-related behaviours (like rocking or turning my head from side to side). These “self-soothing” behaviours, and accompanying shame, metastasized with the sexual abuse which started when I was about three years old.6

When my mother told me the bullies at school were wrong to say I was “blind as a bat” I thought she must be right because I had usable vision. I figured comments about my vision problem meant that I was just too stupid to learn how to see, since “seeing” generally meant being able to predict events based on applying learned experience. My father’s insistence that I learn touch-typing at the age of 10 – though invaluable when I studied journalism and the Law – was a double-edged sword. He wanted to be sure I would have “something to fall back on” because, after all, “boys seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses;” the response of my classmates suggested I probably wouldn’t land a husband/provider/protector. My father’s plans for my security, while insulting, also seemed sensible, since I was too stupid to see and unworthy of being seen.

Validation in a world gone mad

I left the U.S. in 2003 because I experienced the collapsing democracy and military imperialism of that era as an existential threat and profound cognitive dissonance. My job (advocating for the rights of disabled people), was threatened by state budget cuts and the failure to recognize health care as a human right. I had also been harassed and assaulted by a stranger in what was clearly a disability and gender-based hate crime, yet was denied the opportunity to report it as such at the (state) police station where I fled after the event.

My first 20 years in Canada were taken up with (re)learning French, making a marriage work and following my spouse to foreign postings, bringing the disability rights-based opposition to E/AS to Canada and Québec, and observing the continued political and social deterioration in the United States.7

I was aware of the negative effect of the E/AS work on my mental health, and did what I could to mitigate the damage. The situation was aggravated with the pandemic (and its triage policies that threw disabled people under the bus) and the inauguration of Trump 2.0; I became unable to manage the writer’s block that had been getting worse for years. This substack has taken me more than two months to write. But as I said, I got no support from provincial health services for managing psych meds or getting effective treatment.8

Treatment approaches

Holistic v. symptom-based

Recently I was reminded of the importance of a holistic approach (in the realm of physical health), when I awoke on March 14 with a 50% loss of usable vision in my “good” eye. I took it easy that day, and (to my great relief) the problem cleared up after about 36 hours. (10% of normal vision is a lot better than 5%). I am at a loss as to how to address the underlying problem; I suspect I may have had a partially detached retina due to ocular pressure caused by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) treatment I’ve used for 33 years to control obstructive sleep apnea. The ophthalmologist who prescribes the eyedrops for my glaucoma has never asked about the possible cause of the glaucoma, or whether it might be related to the CPAP, nor has my primary care doctor. So I don’t know which professional to consult, or how to raise my concerns, without giving the impression I am trying to tell the medical professionals how to do their job.

The same principle applies to mental health care; I believe that I probably need to do some sort of somatic-based therapy to bypass my tendency to intellectualize and avoid feeling, but am I asking too much by insisting on psychiatric support for medications specifically for Complex PTSD, or a therapist who can provide a treatment such as EMDR,9 and who understands my trauma history and experience of disability oppression?

The most appropriate therapies, the best-suited provider(s)

In November, the counsellor I had been working with for three years (who had the requisite expertise and background) abruptly terminated the therapy relationship. Since then I have interviewed several possible therapists, only to discover either that they do not provide the treatment I am looking for, or that they cannot work with me because of my location. I am searching for a therapist who is trauma informed and can work online, who is certified in EMDR and who works from a disability justice perspective.10

I have been sending the following introductory email to counsellors I find on therapist referral cites: “I’m a 64-year-old disabled, cis, white woman looking for a counsellor to work with me on complex PTSD from full-spectrum child abuse, medical trauma and ableism, as well as grown-up issues like lawyer recovery, expat status/second language self-expression, and burn out from 30 years of (draining and triggering) work opposing the legalization of assisted dying from a disability rights perspective. Specifically, I’m hoping to use adapted EMDR (I’m legally blind, so the EM part doesn’t work for me) to deal with the CPTSD; I’m open to suggestion on the other stuff.”

Hope and trust in the therapeutic relationship

Recently I got some feedback on the introductory email; I was told that it could be off-putting, or even intimidating to some potential therapists. I responded by saying “That’s kind of the point.” I don’t want to waste my time interviewing counsellors who do not understand complex trauma, or who hold medical-model views of disability, or who see assisted dying as a good idea for disabled people.11 I’m also not confident I could gain much insight in talk therapy when my nervous system reacts like a three-year-old kid who can’t see if my rampaging father is about to attack me, every time someone raises their voice. Each time I question myself about one of my criteria (“do I really need a therapist who understands ableism?” or “Do I really need to do nervous system regulation?”) I have to remind myself that I’m not asking for too much, and that I deserve to get the help I need.

Back to the question of irremediability

Is my mental illness irremediable? I hope not, and I don’t think so. I’m hoping I can cobble together the pieces of a treatment and support system into a coherent care plan for myself. But given the lack of support and help I have received from Québec’s health providers, I cannot feel assured that if I experience a sudden setback (major vision loss, death in the family) I will get the support I need without having my trauma exacerbated by the intervention of an ableist, paternalistic mental health system.

In 2022, Québec decided not to legalize euthanasia for mental illness alone, but what guarantee do I have that some well-meaning doctor or nurse practitioner might not decide that losing my remaining vision, combined with the effects of childhood trauma and any other crisis that pops up, isn’t enough to justify substituting euthanasia for suicide prevention?

Bill C-218

Disability rights activists oppose E/AS because we understand that, while cloaked in “good intentions” the state only intervenes to end disabled lives, because of the belief that disability is a fate worse than death. Bill C-218, which would prohibit MAiD for people whose request is based only on a mental illness, is a small step toward redressing the deadly, eugenic, ersatz form of “care” that is MAiD.

1 World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, 11th Edition, (2022), 6B41 Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#585833559.

2 Oliveira-Maia AJ, Bobrowska A, Constant E, Ito T, Kambarov Y, Luedke H, Mulhern-Haughey S, von Holt C.; Treatment-Resistant Depression in Real-World Clinical Practice: A Systematic Literature Review of Data from 2012 to 2022. Adv Ther. 2024 Jan;41(1):34-64. doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02700-0. Epub 2023 Oct 26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10796703/.

3 Konrad, M., and Ferrier, C., “Commentary: MAID: No Evidence Base for Futility and Irremediability in Psychiatric Disorders,” Psychiatric Times, April 6, 2026, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/maid-no-evidence-base-for-futility-and-irremediability-in-psychiatric-disorders.

4 The ACE survey is far from complete; it does not account for medical trauma, discrimination, bullying, witnessing domestic violence, or the effects of war, natural disasters, displacement and migration. The World Health Organization’s ACE International Questionnaire takes more factors (such as discrimination, bullying and collective violence) into account, but does not include medical trauma.

5 One fly in my security ointment comes from the fact that my husband, who can no longer work and is losing mobility, finds meaning in life through helping homeless and marginalized people (some of whom are active alcoholics and drug addicts), who come to the house for loans emotional support or to do odd jobs. We have agreed that, for my sense of safety, they will only come between 1 and 5 in the afternoon, and that people who are intoxicated may not come into the house.

6 In 1991, at a workshop I gave (along with colleagues in a support group of disabled women survivors of child sexual abuse) called “Adding Incest to Injury” we presented on the multiplier effects of ableism and child sexual abuse. We described how being trained to compliance and treated as objects of medical care increased our vulnerability to sexual abuse, while the loss of control during sexual violation made us more susceptible to shame and existential confusion caused by disability discrimination.

7 Forever wars, anti-immigrant policies, the #MeToo movement in response to the predator-in-chief and the Epstein files, the failure of democracy and the backlash against diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.

8 From what I can gather, the only way to get comprehensive mental health services in Québec is to be in crisis, which would precipitate a response from the system that would deprive me of control over what treatment I receive and where and how I received it. This is highly triggering for a person with Complex PTSD, as I learned when I was hospitalized in 1991 and 1997, and can do more harm than the beneficial effects of the treatment.

9 Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy is an extensively researched, effective psychotherapy method in which the person focuses briefly on the traumatic memory while simultaneously experiencing bilateral stimulation, which can reduce the vividness and emotion associated with the trauma memories. Ongoing research supports positive clinical outcomes, showing EMDR therapy as a helpful treatment for disorders such as anxiety, depression, OCD, chronic pain, addictions, and Complex PTSD (Maxfield, 2019). EMDR therapy has even been superior to Prozac in trauma treatment.)

10 Disability justice is an intersectional framework and movement, coined in 2005 by queer disabled people of color, that centers the lives and leadership of marginalized disabled people. It moves beyond legal rights to address how ableism, racism, colonialism, capitalism, and heteropatriarchy intersect to harm people, the biome, and the environment)

11 FN One therapist wondered why I was working so hard to prevent people from having euthanasia if they wanted to be dead. It made me wonder if she provided suicide prevention intervention to all clients who were suicidal, or just non-disabled ones.

Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

We mourn the death of the great John Kelly

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I am shocked and saddened by the loss of John Kelly, the leader of the disability rights group, Second Thoughts an activist with Not Dead Yet and a leader of Progressives Against Medical Assisted Suicide.

John was an amazing disability rights activist leader and tireless in his opposition to medical assisted suicide. John was an amazing leader, advocate, speaker, a warrior for truth.

John was a gifted orator and incredibly funny and witty.

He was a great collaborator, life few others. He worked with everyone.

I remember John coming to Toronto to speak at our Euthanasia Prevention Coalition conference. He was profound, excellent and funny. 

But life with a disability was always present. The next morning he thanked one of the doctors who was attending the conference for saving his life. I can't remember exactly what happened, but in the night he had a medical emergency.

Similar to Diane Coleman, the founder of Not Dead Yet who died last November and Stephen Mendelsohn who died in June, John's death is an incredible loss.

Here are some articles by or about John Kelly.

• Disabilities group has Second Thoughts on assisted suicide (Link). 
• Disability leader speaks out against assisted suicide in Massachusetts (Link).
• Assisted Suicide goes to a vote in Massachusetts (Link).
• John Kelly speaks out on disability and assisted suicide (Link). 
• Disability opposition to assisted suicide helped secure third defeat in New England states this session (Link). 
• Assisted Suicide. Just Too Dangerous (Link). 
• Disability rights organizations oppose assisted suicide (Link).  
• Assisted suicide laws are more dangerous than people acknowledge (Link). 
• John Kelly: Say No to assisted suicide expansion in Oregon (Link). 
• Alex Schadenberg and John Kelly on Radio Sputnik (Link). 
• John Kelly: Testimony opposing Washington DC assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• John Kelly: Second Thoughts testimony against California assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• John Kelly: Assisted suicide laws and bills are "Riddled with Falsehoods" (Link). 
• People with disabilities comment on Me Before You (Link). 
• John Kelly: Testimony opposing New Jersey assisted suicide bill (Link).
• Assisted suicide. Vulnerable to abuse (Link). 
• John Kelly: New Mexico assisted suicide bill deserved to die (Link). 
• Assisted suicide would put pressure on disabled to die (Link). 
• John Kelly's incredible presentation on why the disability community opposes assisted suicide (Link). 
• John Kelly: The case for death with dignity collapses under scrutiny (Link).
• John Kelly: People lose their lives to misdiagnosis, coercion, abuse and depression (Link).
• Assisted suicide: What seems like dignity can turn out to be anything but (Link).
• Disability rights leaders praise Massachusetts court decision (Link).
• John Kelly: Push for assisted suicide raises questions over disability rights (Link).
• Oppose the Massachusetts assisted suicide bills (Link). 
• John Kelly: The answer is not medically assisted suicide (Link).
  

The Evolution of Euthanasia in Canada.

By: Amy Hasbrouck 

Amy Hasbrouck

Amy is a long-time disability rights activist, a leader with Not Dead Yet and a past president of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

That was then. This is now. (Link to the substack).

From September, 2013 to June, 2020, Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet hosted a weekly webcast on issues related to assisted suicide, euthanasia and other life-ending practices that disproportionately affect disabled people. During that time, we (predicted and) chronicled the legal, legislative, and regulatory milestones that have led to the broad and expanding euthanasia program that Canada calls medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

The series “That was then, this is now” revisits podcast texts marking important milestones on the road to legalization and expansion of euthanasia in Canada, and reflects on the outcomes of those social and policy choices.

Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work. (Link to the substack)

THAT WAS THEN:

Duelling expert panels

• On July 17, 2015, the Harper government named an External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada.

• The panel included experts in palliative care, disability and law:

  • Harvey Chochinov, Distinguished professor of psychiatry and palliative care at the University of Manitoba;

  • Catherine Frazee, professor emeritus in Disability Studies at Ryerson University; and

  • Benoit Pelletier, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

• The panel was charged with conducting a consultation with medical experts and interveners in the Carter case to gather opinions and perspectives on the issues raised by the decision to help the government develop a legislative response to the Court’s decision. Topics included:

  • Different forms of physician-assisted dying (assisted suicide and/or euthanasia);

  • Eligibility criteria and definition of key concepts;

  • Risks to individuals and society associated with physician-assisted dying; and

  • Safeguards to address risks and procedures for assessing requests for assistance in dying and the protection of physicians’ freedom of conscience.

• However, with the announcement in August of the federal election for October 19, 2015, the panel suspended its activity as of August 4.

• The federal panel’s final report was released in December of 2015 and can be found at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/pad-amm/pad.pdf

• The Province of Ontario launched a similar group in August of 2015 the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying representing all provinces and territories except Québec, with the same mandate as the federal panel.

• Several members of the provincial panel are activists for assisted suicide, including:

  • Jennifer Gibson (Co-Chair) – Director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics

  • Maureen Taylor (Co-Chair) – Physician Assistant in Infectious Diseases and Medical Journalist

  • Jocelyn Downie – Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine at Dalhousie University

  • Arthur Schafer – Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.

• The panel did not include anyone with expertise in palliative care or disability rights.

• The only panel member who had said she opposes assisted suicide was Dr. Nuala Kenny. Her status as a Catholic nun probably reduced her credibility on a committee and in a society that prefers non-religious values.

• The Provincial-territorial panel was surely created to try to supplant the federal panel. It continued its consultation until the election and submitted a report to parliament before the Carter ruling came into effect on February 6, 2016.

• If parliament hadn’t received any input when it came back after the October election, it’s possible that the Supreme Court may have granted an extension to draft legislation. But since the Provincial panel had provided recommendations, the Supreme Court was less likely to push back the deadline.

• Though the federal panel is not holding meetings, people could still submit testimony and comments via their web site.

• Ontario’s information about MAiD is at https://www.ontario.ca/page/doctor-assisted-dying-and-end-life-decisions-consultation

• The panel’s final report can be found at https://novascotia.ca/dhw/publications/Provincial-Territorial-Expert-Advisory-Group-on-Physician-Assisted-Dying.pdf.

Proposed regulations to implement Québec’s euthanasia law

• The Act Respecting End-of-life Care was adopted in Québec on June 5, 2014, and came into effect in December of 2015.

• The Government of Québec published its regulations to implement the euthanasia program on July 15, 2015.

• If you think of a legislative Act as stating what must be done, the regulations explain how to do it.

• The law allowed people to choose medical aid in dying – euthanasia – among the options for “care” at the end of life.

• These regulations relate to the information doctors have to provide to the Commission on End-of-life Care (which oversees the euthanasia program), and the activities of the commission itself.

• The proposed regulations don’t give enough detail, they cause confusion, and they don’t fill in the gaps in the law.

  • The regulations require doctors to provide information about screening and evaluations for eligibility, but there’s no explanation of how these evaluations will be done nor how eligibility will be determined.

    • What is the procedure and standard for deciding if a person is capable of giving “free and informed” consent?

    • What factors are counted in deciding if the request is the result of external pressure?

  • The regulations don’t explain how a doctor would make a referral if s/he doesn’t want to kill a person, nor what to do if the person isn’t eligible for euthanasia.

  • There is no explanation of how euthanasia is to be carried out.

  • The “safeguard” of oversight by the Commission is retroactive. That doesn’t help the person who is already dead.

  • The doctor must report “the reasons why the suffering cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable” but doesn’t have to say what services or treatments (if any) were provided to alleviate suffering.

• The overall impression of the law and regulations is a program that is badly designed, with problems and legal loopholes that won’t protect vulnerable people.

• The Commission has no responsibility to verify that medical killing and euthanasia are not happening aside from those counted in the doctors’ reports.

THIS IS NOW: September, 2025

Duelling consultation panels

• When this webcast was written, Stephen Harper had been Canada’s Prime Minister for nearly a decade. Despite having ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the Harper government had done nothing to implement the Convention, nor to address the inequality faced by disabled people, as well as barriers to employment, housing, and a liveable income.

• The Conservatives’ choice of panelists for the federal body tasked with identifying options for a legislative response to Carter were well received, while the over-representation of assisted dying proponents on the Provincial-Territorial panel was worrisome. So while on a policy level, the election of the Liberals on October 19 might initially have seemed like good news, Trudeau soon showed he favoured the Provincial-Territorial panel’s perspective and approach; thus the tradition of disregarding the needs and views of disabled people continued apace.

• The Federal panel opened its consultations to all Canadians, while the Provincial-Territorial group provided policy advice based on submissions from invited stakeholders, which did not include groups opposed to assisted dying (such as the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition or Not Dead Yet) while the group Dying with Dignity was invited to provide both written and in-person submissions.

Québec proposed regulations

• Despite vigorous advocacy by disabled people, Québec lags behind other provinces in funding self-directed personal assistance services; preferring institutional long-term care for elders and younger disabled people who need help with personal care and activities of daily living. Thus, euthanasia has become the go-to option for people facing loss of autonomy in Québec. Nor has access to palliative care improved to meet the needs of people at the end of life seeking relief from unremitting suffering.

  • Access has become:

    • Easier – Prompted by high rates of non-compliance, Québec’s health minister eliminated the requirement that the second doctor must be independent as of February of 2017. Since then, numerous other safeguards have been eliminated.

    • faster – Same-day euthanasia was documented as early as 2017.

    • Broader – Euthanasia is available to more people, under a wider variety of circumstances.

  • See also “In Contrast to Carter” describing the expansion of euthanasia on a national scale.

• The problems noted in the draft regulations have not been addressed.
  

EPC-USA's Broad Coalition Participated in the American Academy of Family Physicians conference.

Colleen E. Barry

The cost to attend medical conferences is prohibitive. Consider donating to the EPC - USA (Donation Link).

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) FUTURE conference held from July 31 - August 2 in brought together medical students and residents from across the nation with family medicine leaders, residency programs and potential employers for three days of family medicine exploration + celebration." Event. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA had an Honor and opportunity to participate in the "AAFPFUTURE" Conference. 

Part of EPC-USAs' goals are to educate the public along with professionals on issues related to euthanasia, assisted suicide and their effect on society. We provided educational materials, discussions. Assisted Suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. EPC-USA recognizes that Doctors are the original opponents of assisted suicide.

EPC-USA was grateful with the many discussions as well as a great amount of basic information given to participants, including resources and follow up material from Dr. Sharon Quick, President of "Physicians for Compassionate Care educational Foundation". Dr. Quick has expressed that: 

“A death request is often a plea for help, but legalizing assisted suicide may allow an option to die to transform into a duty to die.”

EPC-USA was able to educate Medical Students and a broad coalition of doctors, medical professionals and attorneys about people who have experienced the direct threat of assisted suicide against themselves or a family member. EPC-USA shared the history of Disability groups such as Not Dead Yet, Second Thoughts and DREDF (Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund), just to name a few who have been at the fore front to stop assisted suicide. 

A monumental past leader of DREDF, Marilyn Golden stated: 

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse.” “No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can prevent this outcome, which can never be undone.”

EPC-USA was able too share the many successes when state coalitions encompassing a broad variety of individuals and groups led their state legislators to understand their concern and opposition to assisted suicide. 

One of EPC-USA’s missions is to combat the growing acceptance of assisted suicide through advocacy and education. The broad variety of individuals and groups includes progressive's as well as conservatives, includes a disability and human justice-based movement to prevent the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia and to end these practices where they exist. Assisted suicide cuts to the heart of what kind of society we want to live in.

Discussions with conference participants included physicians explaining that their care of patients, must establish a physician-patient relationship based on mutual trust and respect to be able to render the best care to their patients. Not assisted suicide. 

Many Medical students and residents were very appreciative to see EPC-USA's booth and expressed the concerns that they have with assisted suicide. These medical students expressed their goal of caring for many patients throughout their lives, extending through to their last days of life.

There were residents, medical students and physicians that were surprised to see our booth and expressed confusion. It was a great opportunity for EPC-USA to share basic information, discussion and provide resources from others doctors that have actively taken a stand to help society realize the problems with assisted suicide. These doctors explain that assisted suicide is Not a Therapy or a Solution.

EPC-USA professionals in attendance were so successful that we ran out of educational material and resources including a the story of a doctor working with a patient that qualified for assisted suicide. The doctor knew that the patient was caught up in the hype of the newly passed assisted suicide law in Oregon and was depressed by a new prognosis. The doctor guided the patient out of out the depression. The patient is still alive and well today. EPC-USA also ran out of educational material on a list of coercion and complications cases that is provided by a disability rights group.

Assisted Suicide is not a type of medical treatment. And affects the nature of medical treatment in our society.

Our table at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) FUTURE conference was an incredible success.

The cost to attend medical conferences is prohibitive. Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA (Donation Link).

Colleen Barry is a nurse and the Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA