Euthanasia of the mentally ill in the Netherlands is increasing.

This article was published by National Review online on March 9, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

As the West lunges toward propagating a right to be made dead, the deleterious societal impacts of being legally “MAIDed” (killed by “medical assistance in dying”) are becoming increasingly clear. A recent professional analysis published in the Psychiatric Times illustrates the lethal influence on mentally ill suicidal people — including youth — in the Netherlands.

Article: Euthanasia for young people and psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands (Read).

From “Psychiatric Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Young People, Procedural Medicine, and the Limits of Psychiatry” (citations omitted):

Requests for euthanasia on psychiatric grounds have risen sharply, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors. The Dutch model, once presented internationally as careful and balanced, is now attracting attention for a different reason: growing uncertainty about whether psychiatry has crossed a boundary it cannot coherently justify.

This increase has had a deleterious impact on suicidal youth:

The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.

When euthanasia deaths are considered alongside suicides, assisted dying now accounts for a growing proportion of premature deaths among young adults, particularly young women, raising serious concerns about contagion effects, shifting cultural norms, and the population-level consequences of introducing medicalized death into the care landscape for youth with mental suffering.

The phenomenon of “doctor shopping” (as I call it) has long been a problem with legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. The problem also exists in the Netherlands. The authors point to a retired psychiatrist who has repeatedly MAIDed mentally ill patients whom other psychiatrists had refused to terminate:

Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch psychiatrist whose actions have profoundly shaped public perception. In an 11-month period, he performed 12 euthanasia procedures for mental suffering, including cases involving youth and at least 1 minor. He publicly described his trajectory as a moral awakening, introducing the term “mentally terminal” to suggest an analogy between mental suffering and terminal somatic illness. The concept has no grounding in psychiatric science or developmental psychology, but it proved rhetorically powerful. . . .

Colleagues reported troubling practices. Young patients were sometimes redirected toward euthanasia pathways while their treating teams were still actively engaged and believed meaningful improvement was possible. The message implicit in such interventions was that persistence in treatment could be bypassed if even one clinician was willing to declare suffering irremediable. The clinical authority of ongoing therapeutic relationships was thus undermined by a parallel pathway oriented toward death.

As we have seen before, a rogue euthanasia death doctor can become a celebrated media figure, helping spread the euthanasia virus:

Oosterhoff recorded euthanasia conversations with a minor and made them available online. The material was later removed as the footage caused significant distress among clinicians, ethicists, and child psychiatrists. Yet, rather than prompting restraint, it increased his visibility. He became a frequent guest on television talk shows and published a bestselling book, positioning himself as a moral pioneer. . . .

Patients can search for permissive clinicians, and once euthanasia has been suggested by one professional, it becomes exceedingly difficult for others to refuse. Social media and sympathetic media coverage amplify these dynamics, producing contagion effects. Requests spike after high-profile stories, particularly among young women.

The authors conclude:

The Dutch experiment with psychiatric euthanasia, particularly in youth, can no longer be described as cautious, balanced, or exemplary. What has emerged over the past decade is an unstable configuration in which activism, procedural regulation, and moral avoidance increasingly substitute for clinical humility and epistemic restraint. Practices that appear on paper to respect individual autonomy generate, at the population level, predictable and troubling effects: contagion phenomena following media exposure, forum shopping among clinicians, widening diagnostic claims of irremediability, and the steady medicalization of social, developmental, and existential distress.

(This analysis is consistent with other studies showing that legalizing and advocating assisted suicide increase suicides overall.)

Euthanasia for young people and Psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for psychiatric reasons and for young people have increased substantially over the past few years.

Jim van Os, MD, PhD, Wilbert van Rooij, MD, Mark S. Komrad, MD, DFAPA wrote a research article that was published in the Psychiatric Times on March 5, 2026 examining these issues.

The authors examine the Netherlands euthanasia data and suggest that there was "professional restraint" in the early years of the euthanasia law since the law did not prohibit euthanasia for young people or based on mental illness. The authors explain that euthanasia for these groups, in the early years, was almost non-existent. They write:

The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.

Within this expansion, youth euthanasia cases are increasingly prominent. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of euthanasia cases for individuals under 30 rose from 5 to 30, a 6-fold increase, representing over 9% of all premature deaths (suicide + assisted dying) in that age group in the Netherlands. When requests rather than completed euthanasia are considered, the numbers are worrying. Given that an estimated 3% of youthful (<24 years) applicants receive euthanasia, the estimated number of youthful applicants in 2024 would total 7300.

The authors suggest that the majority of Psychiatrists in the Netherlands remain reluctant to participate in euthanasia but a small group of psychiatrists have has actively promoted psychiatric euthanasia as an expression of compassion and respect for autonomy and they have established a group called the Dutch, Knowledge Center for Euthanasia in Mental Disorders (KEA) that is actually an activist group. The authors explain:

According to its website, its aim is to increase knowledge and societal acceptance of euthanasia for mental suffering, to improve access to euthanasia trajectories, and to support and advocate for patients with mental illness who request euthanasia, as well as their relatives and involved professionals. While presenting itself as a foundation for recognition and dignity, KEA operates as an activist organization, lobbying policymakers, engaging strategically with media, and exerting public pressure on dissenting professionals.

The authors continue:

In this framing, complex mental suffering rooted in trauma, social marginalization, developmental vulnerability, and failures of care are increasingly presented as a medical dead end. Structural deficits in mental health services, including long waiting lists and fragmented care, fade into the background. Professional hesitation is reframed as cruelty or paternalism rather than as clinical prudence.

This is an important statement for Canada to consider. Since Canada also has massive structural deficits in mental health services and long waiting times, promoters of euthanasia for mental illness would also argue that it is a cruel paternalism to deny a person death by euthanasia.

The authors then describe the role of Menno Oosterhoff in creating an atmosphere of acceptance for youth and psychiatric euthanasia. The authors write:

This shift has been personified by Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch psychiatrist whose actions have profoundly shaped public perception. In an 11-month period, he performed 12 euthanasia procedures for mental suffering, including cases involving youth and at least 1 minor. He publicly described his trajectory as a moral awakening, introducing the term “mentally terminal” to suggest an analogy between mental suffering and terminal somatic illness.

The concept has no grounding in psychiatric science or developmental psychology, but it proved rhetorically powerful. Oosterhoff recorded euthanasia conversations with a minor and made them available online.9 The material was later removed as the footage caused significant distress among clinicians, ethicists, and child psychiatrists. Yet, rather than prompting restraint, it increased his visibility. He became a frequent guest on television talk shows and published a bestselling book, positioning himself as a moral pioneer.

Colleagues reported troubling practices.9 Young patients were sometimes redirected toward euthanasia pathways while their treating teams were still actively engaged and believed meaningful improvement was possible. The message implicit in such interventions was that persistence in treatment could be bypassed if even one clinician was willing to declare suffering irremediable. The clinical authority of ongoing therapeutic relationships was thus undermined by a parallel pathway oriented toward death.

Canada has had a similar experience with Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practise. 

Euthanasia for psychiatric issues in the Netherlands has turned suicide prevention efforts upside down. The authors write:

A central justification advanced by proponents is that psychiatric euthanasia prevents violent or lonely suicides. While emotionally compelling, this claim fails empirically. Epidemiological analysis demonstrates that even under optimistic assumptions, euthanasia functions as a profoundly inefficient and harmful preventive strategy. Approximately 9 young individuals would need to die by euthanasia to prevent 1 suicide.

This result reflects a fundamental base-rate problem. Even among high-risk psychiatric populations, suicide remains a rare event. Introducing euthanasia as a sanctioned outcome reframes suicidality from a symptom requiring containment into a potential treatment endpoint, an acceptable “treatment plan.” For youth with trauma histories and narrowed future perspectives, this can entrench death-focused thinking rather than alleviate it.

The activities of KEA and the Thanet group caused a group of psychiatrists to submit their concerns. The authors explain:

A group of psychiatrists submitted a letter to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service to raise alarm about the activities of the KEA foundation and Thanet, a web-based pro-euthanasia initiative. This letter argued that the combined media activism of KEA and the policy-driven pressure created by Thanet substantially contributed to the well-known Werther or contagion effect,15 as repeated television appearances and newspaper stories were followed by a sharp rise in euthanasia requests from youth, raising serious concern that the Netherlands was drifting toward a harmful and irresponsible practice.

The authors call on International guidelines to fill in the blanks in countries like the Netherlands and Canada who lack defined guidelines. They write:

The emergence of such institutional guidelines should be understood not as a solution, but as a symptom. They reflect the absence of a coherent national framework capable of holding together legal permissibility, clinical uncertainty, developmental science, and moral responsibility. Youth with severe mental suffering do not primarily need more refined procedures for death. They need time, continuity, relational safety, and systems capable of holding despair without prematurely foreclosing the future. The Dutch system, as it currently functions, offers certainty where humility is required and procedural clarity where ethical wisdom is lacking. No one can say with confidence where this trajectory will end. What is increasingly clear is that psychiatry, positioned as arbiter of death in the lives of youth, is being asked to carry a responsibility it cannot ethically or scientifically sustain.

This article is particularly important for Canada. Canada also lacks definitive guidelines and Canada has approved euthanasia for mental illness to officially begin on March 17, 2027. Canadians need to examine the Netherlands data and then reject euthanasia for youth and for mental illness. 

Doctor admits to killing patient with mental illness by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill C-218 is a private members bill that is being debated in Canada. If passed Bill C-218 would prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

• Guide to supporting Bill C-218 (Link).
• No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).

An article that was published in the Toronto Star on December 13, 2025 titled: Should MAiD be extended to include those with mental illness? is a debate between Dr Ellen Wiebe, Canada's most notorious euthanasia killer and Dr John Maher, a psychiatrist and ethicist who focuses on caring for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses.

Dr Ellen Wiebe

Based on the language of the law, if MAiD for Mental Illness alone begins in March 2027, Dr Maher's patient group would possibly qualify to be poisoned to death in Canada. 

The article begins:

Dr. Ellen Wiebe: I believe that Canadians have a right to control their dying proces and that those rights shouldn't be limited by a diagnosis. If someone has a psychiatric illness, they should have the same right to choose MAiD as someone with a physical illness.

Dr John Maher: I oppose MAiD for mental illness because it robs people of hope. It normalizes suicide.

Wiebe: I have done probably 1,000 MAiD assessments. The law says that two clinicians must assess and fine someone eligible for MAiD.

Maher: I know you've done 1,000 but that's my concern; that the criteria are so easily met. I worry that people will go doctor shopping until they get the answer they want.

Dr. John Maher

Dr Wiebe believes that euthanasia should be available for people with psychiatric conditions. The debate continued:

Wiebe: The guidelines say a person is eligible for MAiD when no reasonable treatments remain. What is "reasonable" is decided by the clinician and the patient together. A condition is considered incurable when it's symptoms cannot be sufficiently or enduringly relieved.

Maher: But patients don't know whether their condition is incurable. They can't. They come to you for treatment, for your professional expertise.

Wiebe expresses that there are no clear euthanasia guidelines in Canada. The debate continues:

Wiebe: The issue is that we don't know exactly what causes each psychiatric condition. We know there are genetic factors. We know there are brain structure factors. We know there are brain chemistry factors. The difference between psychiatric illnesses and neurological conditions such as dementia is unclear.

Maher: Psychiatric illnesses are treatable. Dementia is not. They are very different. Dementia is a neuro-degenerative disease. Most psychiatric disorders can be treated. And you cannot predict who will recover and who won't.

I have seen people recover after 20 years of severe psychotic illness. I have treated patients who were told they would never improve, and they did. There is an accumulation of wisdom. And respectfully, you don't have the psychiatric expertise that I do.

Wiebe tries to convince a psychiatrist that she understands psychiatry. Wiebe outlines the euthanasia death of a person with mental illess:

Wiebe: No I use professional guidance. I provided MAiD for mental illness before legislation excluded it. My patient, E.F., had seven years of treatment by numerous psychiatrists for a severe conversion disorder (a psychiatric condtion where a person experiences unexplained physical symptoms.)

Maher: Yes, a very shocking case that she got approved; a woman whose suffering was real but whose illness was psychiatric, not terminal.

Wiebe: The issue was how much more she had to suffer. She had the right to say, "I am not suffering anymore."

Maher: Agreed. Our laws allow patients to refuse treatment, unlike in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where doctors must ensure that all reasonable medical and psychiatric treatments have been attempted and proven ineffective before assisted dying can be considered.

Wiebe: For E.F. I reviewed extensive psychiatric documentation. I was satisfied she met the criteria for MAiD. She suffered from 5 physical conditions (including migranes, digestive failure, and limited mobility) that together caused unbearable suffering and tried every treatment that was considered possibly effective.

Maher: You may believe she did, but I know psychiatrists who reviewed the case and were shocked by the treatments that were not attempted.

You have said that you would provide MAiD to people on wait-lists for treatment, by assessing their suffering at that point in time. But the law says patients must have an irremediable condition. That condition is not met if someone does not wait for treatments that may help.

We have a system that doesn't provide adequate care. Only one in three Canadians receive adequate mental-health care in a timely manner, and only one in five children.

Maher points out that the psychiatric euthanasia case that Wiebe carried-out was shocking. The debate continued:

Wiebe: People who choose MAiD want death to be certain. They do not want secrecy. They want to be able to invite their friends. For E.F. we had 10 family members and friends present to support her, tell her how proud they were and give her hugs. That is not suicide.

Maher: I acknowledge that patients with mental illnesses are suffering. These are terrible diseases. But if someone is taking steps to arrange their own death - that is a suicidal plan.

If you are going to offer someone death, you rob them of hope. If you are going to say, "There is nothing more we can do," then it should be true.

Wiebe wants to assure us that E.F.'s death was supported by her family but Maher points out that she was robbed of hope. The debated continued:

Wiebe: MAiD providers must determine whether a patient has the capacity to make a sound medical decision. Patients must be able to understand the consequences of both treatment and refusing treatment.

We are not talking about life or death. We are talking about dying now or dying later.

For mental health cases, I am more likely to need additional corroboration. I would also consult psychiatrist colleagues when I have questions.

It is concerning that Wiebe would suggest that these are not cases of life or death, the debate continued:

Maher: Many people suffering from mental illnesses are pushed to the fringes of society, facing both stigma and poverty. Many people I work with survive on food banks and live in bedbug  and cockroach infested rooms. You walk into these places and think, this cannot be Canada. To then offer them death deeps their vulnerability.

Wiebe: Most of our assisted dying patients are wealthy, well-educated and in charge of their lives.

We do have some vulnerable people, and it factors into our assessment. I look at people in the places you describe, with cockroaches, and ask myself; if the patient were rich, would he want to live longer? I cannot make him rich, and he has a horrible illness causing unbearable suffering, so I let him make his decision.

Maher states that many of his patients, with mental illness, live in poverty, while Wiebe states that most of her killings are wealthy people. The debate continues:

Maher: I understand your goal of relieving suffering. I understand your goal of respecting what patients want. But what confuses me is how you can offer MAiD to people with mental illness who could recover and live long, full lives. How are you able to do that?

Wiebe: I think providing MAiD for people with mental illnesses will be similar to Track 2 cases now (where death is not reasonably foreseeable). When I see someone with chronic fatigue or chronic pain, I need to know they have tried accepted treatments. I will be doing the same when the time comes for mental illness. I have learned from providers in Belgium, where assessments take at least a year, and I hope we will be doing those kind of assessments here.

I have experience with mental illness in my practice and also in my family. My stepson has suffered from schizophrenia for 20 years. He doesn't always make decisions that his parents approve of, but I respect his rights.

Maher completes his part of the debate stating that killing people with mental illness essentially means killing people that may recover and may have years to live a full life while Wiebe responds by saying that MAiD for Mental Illness alone is the same as Track 2 euthanasia, that kills people who are not terminally ill.

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).

Lessons from the Netherlands 2024 euthanasia report.

"once legal euthanasia and assisted suicide will expand in both numbers and reasons for approving and providing death."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 26, 2025 I published an article concerning the 2024 Dutch euthanasia report. My article was based on an article by Bruno Waterfield who reported for The Times on March 24 that there were 9958 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024 in the Netherlands which was up by 10% from 9068 in 2023. According to the report, Netherlands euthanasia deaths have increased by 88% since 2014.

Waterfield also reported that there were 219 psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2024 which was up from 138 in 2023 and 115 in 2022. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has increased by 59% since 2023 and nearly 250% since 2020.

The growth of euthanasia and the acceptance of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands is concerning. The Netherlands experience indicates that euthanasia must never be extended to psychiatric reasons. 

Canada is scheduled to expand euthanasia to psychiatric reasons alone on March 17, 2027. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD Committee) recently condemned Canada's intention to expand euthanasia to psychiatric reasons alone. 

Canada needs to heed the United Nations Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities warning and acknowledge the experience with euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

But there is more.

Professor Theo Boer

On April 8, 2025 I published an article by Theo Boer who is a professor of health ethics at the University of Groningen and a former member of a Netherlands government euthanasia oversight committee. 

Boer wrote a profound article that was published by Le Monde on April 8, 2025 urging France to learn from the Dutch and not legalize euthanasia. (The text was google translated).

In his article Boer explains the euthanasia trends in the Netherlands. Concerning the growth of euthanasia Boer points out that the trend will likely continue. He wrote:

...the (Netherlands government euthanasia oversight) committee's chairman, Jeroen Recourt, predicts that the curve will continue to rise in the years to come. This is no longer a fluctuation: it is a structural trend.

Boer explains that even though the number of total deaths in the Netherlands is increasing that the percentage of euthanasia deaths is also increasing:

from 5.4% of deaths in 2023 to 5.8% in 2024. In 2017, in some regions, this percentage had already reached 15%, and it is expected to have increased since then. Euthanasia is no longer exceptional: in many cases, it is becoming just another end-of-life option.

Concerning the phenomenon of couple euthanasia Boer writes:

The emergence of "euthanasia for two," which allows couples or siblings to die together, is one such trend. In one year, the number of these planned deaths in tandem has jumped by 64%, reaching 108 deaths in 2024.

Boer also comments on the growth of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons:

Above all, euthanasia for psychiatric disorders has increased by 59%, affecting people who are sometimes very young. Patients who are physically healthy, but plunged into mental suffering that medicine struggles to alleviate, are now asking to die – and are succeeding. The number of cases related to dementia is also increasing rapidly.

Boer completes his concerns by stating:

With increasing "normality," healthcare workers are asking themselves: "How far will we go? At what point will this stop being an act of compassion and become an automatic response to patients who refuse to accept a refusal?"

Boer states that the government has launched an investigation into the reasons for this increase and comments on the fact that the government is investigating the reasons for the increase in euthanasia deaths while they are also considering future expansions of the law to include:

assisted suicide to anyone over the age of 74, even in the absence of serious illness. The sole criterion would be age.

Based on the Netherlands euthanasia data and the warnings from Professor Boer, it is wrong to suggest that the euthanasia "slippery slope" is a fallacy. 

Boer also points out that it is wrong to suggest that the same won't happen in other countries. As Boer states:

all countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized, we observe a continuous growth in the number of cases. This is not a Dutch exception. This is a dynamic at work everywhere medically induced death becomes an option.

Canada needs to  heed the Netherlands warning. In Canada euthanasia has grown and expanded significantly. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons alone remains prohibited until March 17, 2027. When examining the Netherlands euthanasia data it is clear that no country should follow their path.

Countries that are currently debating the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide must change their direction. Caring is always good and necessary killing is dangerous.

Based on the Netherlands, Belgium, Canadian, Oregon and California data, it is clear that once legal euthanasia and assisted suicide will expand in both numbers and reasons for approving and providing death.

Let's be clear. There is another way. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is not necessary for providing care and comfort in difficult cases. Further to that, no one is required to accept medical treatment to prolong their life, especially when the treatment has questionable benefits or has onerous outcomes.

Killing is not compassionate, but rather it is abandonment. Killing is not a solution. Once killing is approved that the acceptance and promotion of killing expands.

Maclean's Magazine: Canada's New Home for Death Porn?

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on April 8, 2025

Kelsi Sheren

By Kelsi Sheren

Yes, Yes they are.

Maclean's recent article advocating for the inclusion of individuals with mental disorders in Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program isn't just controversial—it's dangerously unethical, manipulative, fundamentally dark and sinister.

Maclean’s is very quickly gaining a reputation for promoting death porn and suggesting that those suffering mental illnesses should have access to assisted dying. They are once again choosing to send a chilling message to it’s readers, which at this point I doubt are many. They implicitly suggests that lives affected by mental health conditions are less valuable, less deserving of intensive care, treatment, or societal compassion.

In the most recent article promoting and manipulating it’s readers is their attempt to frame suicide as a legitimate option for those struggling with mental health, when all this really shows is Maclean's constant attempt at devaluing the lives of the mentally ill, effectively promoting hopelessness rather than hope.

Imagine the devastating effect on a vulnerable individual reading that their life is considered disposable or irrecoverable by society. This undermines decades of work aimed at destigmatizing mental illness and reinforces dangerous stereotypes about mental health struggles being inherently hopeless. While reading there most recent article I couldn’t help but notice the add for “war amps” on their site, which makes me laugh a bit because people who aren’t perfect are exactly what this magazine is attempting to suggest are disposable.

This magazine continues to frame the argument that people with mental illness are “irremediable”. In the Maclean’s article the concept of "irremediable" mental illness is a wild one. This position is scientifically and ethically unsound. Mental illness, unlike terminal physical illness, is complex, dynamic, and subject to significant change and improvement over time.

Mental illnesses such as depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia can indeed be severe and debilitating. But the nature of these illnesses is often fluctuating, with many sufferers experiencing meaningful recovery after proper care, therapy, medication, lifestyle changes, and even innovative treatments like psychedelics.

To label someone’s mental condition as "irremediable" is both wildly misleading and irresponsible, but this magazine seems to have no soul and seems quite alright with removing the very hope necessary for recovery and invalidates the lived experiences of countless individual’s who have successfully recovered from severe mental health episodes.

As someone who has personally overcome suicidal thoughts and severe mental health struggles, I can affirm that recovery and healing are possible. At my lowest point, it felt impossible to see a way forward, but with appropriate support, therapy, community, plant medicine and determination, I found a path out of that darkness. But according to this article Maclean’s wrote, I would have been considered “irremediable” and If I had seen this story over the 10 years of struggling with my mental health, then I'm sure I would have lost hope too. They are contributing to the idea that there is nothing left to live for so why the fuck should we even try mentality.

The thing is my story isn't unique; countless others have walked similar journeys, reclaiming their lives and thriving beyond their struggles.

To advocate for MAID as an option for mental health conditions fundamentally denies stories like mine and many others, wrongly presenting death as an inevitable or acceptable outcome rather than encouraging genuine healing and recovery.

Expanding MAID to mental illness sets a dangerous and dark cliff people will easily jump off of once we remove the responsibility of being the person to take our own life. A lot of the reason people stop before they attempt suicide is the FEAR or pain and what death will feel like. MAID and the “Dr’s” that do this dangle the carrot like a prize, removing the burden from the person and offering an easy way out.

Initially positioned as compassion, this policy change quickly risks becoming a tool of coercion, especially for marginalized and economically vulnerable groups, something we are continuously seeing in Canada and will continue to see as our healthcare system and country crumble to the ground.

Individuals suffering from severe mental health issues also face compounded struggles—economic hardship, isolation, lack of family support, or chronic homelessness. Offering MAID to these individuals coerces vulnerable people into viewing suicide as a reasonable escape from systemic failures and insufficient social support.

This has never once been about compassionate care. It’s darker than that more sinister and the reality is, is that it’s an abandonment of society’s moral responsibility to provide robust and holistic support systems. MAID has becomes not a tool of autonomy but a grim solution offered by a liberal government who is unwilling to invest adequately in mental health care but will send hundreds of millions of dollars overseas, to support ANYONE BUT it’s citizen’s.

The role of psychiatrists and mental health practitioners is to preserve life, treat illness, and support recovery. Maclean’s advocacy fundamentally conflicts with these professional ethics. Asking mental health professionals to facilitate MAID turn’s healer’s into facilitators of death and we are essentially making all healthcare practitioners EXECUTIONERS. Trained killers, guns for hire and instead of using a gun which would be more humane in my opinion. We are giving them government funded-non FDA approved drugs to inject into the veins of the vulnerable victims of people that have been convinced that death is the only option by people DWD and Macleans.

This ethical dilemma isn't abstract. It poses real-world risks of eroding trust in mental health services. People are hesitating to seek help, fearing their mental health struggles might qualify them for assisted dying rather than compassionate treatment, and we are seeing this time and time again. This scenario undermines the very fabric of mental health care, turning hospitals and therapists’ offices from sanctuaries of healing into environments potentially perceived as threats.

Beneath the surface, this debate is marred by an alarming economic incentive. Promoting MAID as an acceptable choice for mental illness is conveniently become a cost-saving measure for overwhelmed healthcare systems and governmental budgets by the liberal government.

Providing comprehensive mental health support, including therapy, long-term care, psychiatric assistance, and social programs, requires substantial investment, an investment the Canadian government is unwilling to make. Although they seem to have no issue making that investment on illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes, lining the CBC’s pockets, and helping any country besides it own. MAID, by contrast, is inexpensive and expedient. Allowing individuals struggling with mental illness to access MAID has become a financially attractive alternative to addressing underlying systemic and societal shortcomings.

This hidden economic agenda is morally reprehensible, sacrificing human dignity and life at the altar of fiscal expediency, but at this point no one is surprised.

The language used in Maclean’s and similar articles often subtly manipulates public opinion, masking a morally and ethically complex issue behind words like "compassion," "dignity," and "choice." But true compassion would emphasize support, care, and recovery—not present suicide as a rational option.

Macleans is no longer rational journalism and frankly hasn’t been for some time. It’s now bought and paid for suicide porn for the sick, unwell and sad.

Nearly 10,000 Netherlands euthanasia deaths. psychiatric euthanasia's increase by 60%.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bruno Waterfield reported for The Times on March 24 that:

The number of young people in psychological distress being offered lethal injections has caused growing controversy in the Netherlands.

The 2024 euthanasia statistics that were recently released indicated that there were 9958 reported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands which was up by 10% from 9068 in 2023.

It is concerning that there were 219 psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2024 which was up from 138 in 2023 and 115 in 2022. That represents an almost 60% increase in psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2024 and a greater than 90% increase since 2022.

Waterfield reported:

There is concern that growing numbers of suicidal people, especially young people, are asking for help to die. Last year, there were 219 reports of euthanasia after psychological suffering, up by almost 60 per cent from 138 the previous year. In 2020 there were just 88.

Of the cases last year, 30 people were under 30 when they died. In 2020, that number was five.

Waterfield reported that Jeroen Recourt, the president of the RTE, a body comprising five euthanasia oversight committee's stated:

“Are we still doing this right?”

“I welcome social debate on euthanasia due to mental suffering in young people.”

Waterfield reported on one of the young people who died by euthanasia based on psychological suffering:

“The young man described his life as ‘luckless’. He felt very lonely, was deeply unhappy and did not enjoy anything. He could not connect with peers and society, and felt misunderstood,” said the committee, noting a previous suicide attempt. The boy’s parents were consulted in the euthanasia process, although “his relatives and care had tried for a long time to change his mind, without success”.

“The doctor was convinced that the young man’s suffering was hopeless. He did not expect current and any future treatments would improve the quality of life. The young man’s death wish was expected to continue, with a high probability that he would make another suicide attempt if his euthanasia wish was not honoured.”

The euthanasia report indicated that there were 6 concerning cases. Waterfield reported:

Only six cases referred by oversight committees as in breach of rules, mostly involving bungled lethal injections, with too long a gap between the induction of a coma and the deadly drug that stops the patient’s breathing.

One case involved an elderly woman suffering from a mental disorder that made her see faeces everywhere and cause her to clean obsessively who was not referred to an independent psychiatrist. Another elderly woman, in this case with with Parkinson’s disease, “may no longer have felt free to still abandon her choice of euthanasia”. 

I am concerned about the subtle coercion with euthanasia. I know of a Netherlands euthanasia death of an elderly couple where one of the partners was dying and the other was encouraged to die with the partner. 

How is it free consent when there is subtle coercion involved?

More articles:

• Britain must learn from the Netherlands experience with assisted dying (Link). 
• Netherlands euthanasia (homicide) death of 22-year-old averted at the last minute (Link). 
• Netherlands euthanasia death of 17-year-old criticized (Link) 
• Landmark study: Assisted suicide deaths for eating disorders (Link).
• Netherlands assisted suicide group leader found guilty of distributing suicide drugs (Link). 
• Why are the Dutch euthanizing young healthy women? (Link). 
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report. A 20% increase in euthanasia for mental illness. (Link).

Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, who is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE) was published in Spiked on April 18, 2024 is asking the question: Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Yuill begins his article by telling the stories of Yolanda Fun and Zoraya ter Beek:

Jolanda Fun is scheduled to die next week on her 34th birthday. As such, she has been able to prepare the funeral invites in advance. ‘Born from love, let go in love’, reads the card. ‘After a hard-fought life, she chose the peace she so longed for.’

Fun, who lives in North Brabant in the Netherlands, explained why she wants to die in an interview with The Sunday Times last week. Though she is physically healthy, she feels constantly ‘sad, down, gloomy’. At age 22, she was diagnosed with a litany of mental-health problems and has since run the gamut of therapies. Consequently, she has never been able to hold down a job. When a counsellor told her two years ago that she could be euthanised, she decided this was the only option left for her. ‘I want to step out of life’, she explains. 

Fun has no doubt had a difficult life. She suffers from an eating disorder, recurrent depression, autism and mild learning difficulties. But to suggest suicide as a cure to these problems is as good as giving up on her.

Shockingly, Fun’s case is not all that unique in the Netherlands. Earlier this month, it was reported that another young, physically healthy Dutch woman is seeking euthanasia on mental-health grounds. The 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek is scheduled to die in May on account of her depression and autism.

Yuill then explains how euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has expanded.

Most cases of assisted suicide or euthanasia (ASE) in the Netherlands – the first country to legalise the practice in 2002 – involve people with terminal illnesses. But ASE for psychiatric reasons is on the rise. In 2010, only two people sought euthanasia on the grounds of mental health. That increased to 68 in 2019 and to 138 last year.

Psychiatric euthanasia remains divisive in the Netherlands. Many Dutch people who were initially in favour of ASE are reconsidering their positions because of it. Boudewijn Chabot is one such critic, a psychiatrist who actually received a suspended sentence for carrying out the first reported case of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the 1990s. Now Chabot worries that the legalisation of ASE has gone too far. ‘I am not against euthanasia in psychiatry or severe dementia’, he writes. ‘[But] I am extremely concerned that doctors are trying to solve social misery due to lack of treatment and care, by opening the gate to the end.’

Yuill continues:

There is no doubt that the Netherlands’ laws on euthanasia have harmed the most vulnerable. In 2023, a study found 39 cases of ASE in the Netherlands involved people with either learning disabilities or autism, or both. Of these, nearly half were under 50. Although many of these patients also suffered from physical co-morbidities that led to them seeking out ASE, 21 per cent of them did so primarily for psychiatric reasons. They cited characteristics associated with their conditions, such as anxiety, loneliness, difficulty in making friends and connections, and not feeling they had a place in society.

A growing number of people with dementia are also seeking euthanasia in the Netherlands. In fact, 42 per cent of Dutch GPs reported requests for euthanasia from people with dementia. Of those, patients cited feeling like an emotional burden as the most frequent reason. Disturbingly, just under 43 per cent of these patients said they felt pressured by relatives.

Yuill then warns countries that are debating euthanasia to consider the grim reality:

In Scotland, where the government is currently considering a bill to allow assisted suicide, support for legalisation has consistently dropped since 2019. Perhaps this has something to do with the neverending stream of horrific stories emerging from countries where ASE is legal. In Canada, people seek out euthanasia to solve poverty, homelessness and lack of medical care. In the Netherlands, therapists seem to have given up on treating the mentally unwell, recommending euthanasia instead. 

Yuill ends his article by explaining 

The brutality of encouraging those like Jolanda Fun to die destroys the argument that ASE is about compassionately relieving end-of-life suffering. Fun herself is unsure whether or not things could have been different for her, had she received the right treatment. ‘They say you are born like this’, she says, ‘but I really think the services should have listened a bit better’.

This is where treating death as a form of medicine has led to. Medical professionals should be telling suicidal people that life can get better, not encouraging them to give up. Allowing euthanasia on psychiatric grounds tells those suffering with a mental illness that their lives are not worth living. This is not compassionate or dignified. It is evil. 

More articles on this topic:

• Autistic 28-year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to die by euthanasia (Link).
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report - A 20% increase in euthanasia for mental illness (Link).

Irish Psychiatrist issues warning as physically healthy Dutch and Canadian autistic women are approved for death by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

As Ireland debates legalizing euthanasia, a leading psychiatrist issued a warning that the recent case of a physically healthy 28-year-old autistic woman in the Netherlands, and a healthy 27-year-old autistic woman in Canada who have been approved for euthanasia could also become a reality in Ireland if euthanasia is legalized.

Maria Maynes was published by RIPT on April 9, 2024 concerning the debate to legalize euthanasia in Ireland. Maynes interviewed Consultant psychiatrist, Professor Patricia Casey, a specialist in Adult Psychiatry. Maynes reportes:

recent cases unfolding worldwide involving physically healthy young people should provide evidence to Irish lawmakers that “the slippery slope exists,” as she expressed particular concern about those with autism choosing assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Last month, this publication also reported on the Canadian case of an unnamed 27-year-old woman, who was also autistic, and had chosen to die by physician assisted suicide. While the father of the unnamed woman tried to intervene through court action, arguing that she did not have the ability to consent to the death under Canada’s MAiD programme, his intervention was unsuccessful.

There have also been cases in Belgium, where Asperger’s (now subsumed under the autistic spectrum) is among the most common conditions for which Belgians seek euthanasia on mental health grounds, alongside personality disorders and depression.

Maynes quoted Casey as stating:

“There is a danger that when young, autistic people see a problem that they will look for what they see is a simple solution, or a trendy solution,” she said.

Casey also stated:

“I was struck by the photograph of 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek in the Netherlands, who was pictured surreally embraced in the arms of her boyfriend while announcing that she was due to die on May 28th. This photograph conceals the turmoil and nihilism behind her decision and may well be used in the future to promote assisted dying as a calming answer to one’s problems.”

Professor Casey compares the issue to the romanticizing of suicide that was successfully countered by national campaigns. Professor Casey fears that the same type of romanticizing of death by euthanasia will also occur.

Professor Anne Doherty examined the issue of suicide rates in jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. Professor Casey referred to her research and stated:

“Prof Doherty found that the rate of non-assisted suicide increased after assisted suicide was legalised, and I fear we will see exactly the same pattern. I also think it is very nihilistic to say to people, ‘There is no help. Why don’t you go for assisted suicide?’ I mean, it is such a dark thing to say to anybody. I think it should be absolutely taboo, but instead of that, it is now becoming glamorised.”

Professor also commented on the "bracket creep" in countries that have legalized euthanasia and stated:

“This is what has happened in a range of countries. The Netherlands, for instance, didn’t start with euthanasia for young people with mental illness. It legislated initially for those with terminal illness. Similarly in Canada and in Belgium. Now all of those countries are allowing assisted suicide for young people, or for people with mental illness – or a combination of both.”

As for the concern that people with Autism are more susceptible to requesting euthanasia, Casey stated:

“One of the reasons a young person with autism may be more susceptible is due to the fact that a lot of those with autism have unusual interests and hobbies. For example, some would have an interest in the afterlife, or the occult, or similar. We also know that some individuals who are on the autistic spectrum have very fixed beliefs about things, and so can be quite suggestible.”

“Once something has been suggested, the person can fixate on that. I think the interest in unusual things, something we often see in those with ASD, and some of the things that are outside the norm, along with their tendency to fixate on things, would make that person particularly vulnerable. For instance, people with rigid thinking, such as many of those with ASD, find it difficult to consider alternative solutions to problems. And this may render them more than willing to choose this particular pathway to death.”

Professor Casey also commented on the Social Contagion that is likely to happen with euthanasia:

“There will be a social contagion aspect, because as we know, teenagers and young adults are always online now. One person engaging in, or planning, an assisted suicide, will be in touch with others in their group and that contagion effect is very toxic.”

“We must not forget that suicide clusters existed in the recent past, because of social contagion. And it is difficult to escape that prospect in relation to assisted suicide, also.”

Ireland is currently debating the legalization of euthanasia. A recent parliamentary report was released which advocated that euthanasia be legalized for a person diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is both incurable and irreversible; advanced, progressive, and will likely cause death within six months (or within 12 months in the case of someone with a neuro-degenerative disease, illness or condition; and suffering in a manner that the person “cannot be relieved in a manner that the person finds tolerable.”

The Irish report obviously decided to push for the legalization of euthanasia in a fairly wide open manner.

For further reading, Gordon Friesen, the President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition issued a warning to Ireland in his article: If euthanasia is legalized as a cure for suffering, then suffering people will be "cured" with euthanasia!

Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report. A 20% increase in euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2023 Netherlands euthanasia report, that was recently released, indicates that the number of euthanasia deaths increased and the number of euthanasia deaths based on mental illness increased by 20%.

The Netherlands Times reported that there were 9,068 reported euthanasia deaths in 2023 which was up from 8,720 in 2022. There was also a 20% increase in euthanasia for psychological reasons in 2023 with 138 reported deaths.

The Netherlands Times refers to reported euthanasia deaths because studies indicate that approximately 20% of the euthanasia deaths are not reported.

Link to my article on the 2022 Netherlands euthanasia report (Link).

50% of the euthanasia deaths for psychological reasons are carried out by the Euthanasia Expertise Center (EE) euthanasia clinic. The (EE) received were more requests for euthanasia for psychological reasons from young people and approved more deaths for this age group. The Netherlands Times reported:

EE saw a significant increase in requests last year from young people with psychiatric issues. The center received 322 requests from people aged 18 to 30, which is over 50 percent more than last year. The RTE numbers showed that 40 requests for assisted suicide were granted to people 30 years old or younger.

The NL Times stated that euthanasia for psychological reasons accounted for 1.5% of all euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands in 2023.