Canada's parliament needs to fully review the euthanasia law.

This speech was delivered to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying on May 5, 2026. I was only given 5 minutes to speak.

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link).

My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.

Developments in Canada have influenced debates in other countries, including the defeat of the assisted dying bills in Scotland, the UK House of Lords(1) and Slovenia, where assisted suicide was overturned through a referendum.

Rather than extending assisted dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s assisted dying law is functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendment? These questions have never been addressed.

Dr Ramona Coelho stated in her article, published by the MacDonald Laurier Institute on January 5, 2026(2) as a commentary on the Sixth Annual Report on MAiD that:

“Although the report emphasizes self-identified disability, all MAiD recipients are disabled by definition. Disability refers to any long-term impairment that limits participation in life. MAiD is legal for individuals with a “grievous and irremediable” condition, an incurable illness causing irreversible decline in capabilities. Anyone meeting these criteria is by definition disabled, though not all disabled people should qualify for MAiD.

Common conditions listed for Track 2 MAiD reinforce this point. Diabetes appears frequently, and Ontario’s MDRC documented a man who received MAiD for an essential tremor. These are disabilities, yet they do not usually cause the serious decline that MAiD is intended to address. By emphasizing self-identified disability, the report obscures the real story: MAiD eligibility targets disabled people, a concern highlighted by the disability community, the United Nations and human rights watchdogs, and most recently, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”(2)

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for repeal of Track 2 MAiD, increased oversight of the law and no further expansion, including the scheduled expansion of MAiD for the sole criteria of mental illness.

For instance, Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025.(3) Kiano was seeking assisted dying in Ontario, where he lived, but his requests for MAiD were not approved by doctors in Ontario.

Kiano then contacted Dr Ellen Wiebe in Vancouver, British Columbia, who assessed him and approved him for MAiD.

Margaret Marsilla, Kiano’s mother, was shocked that her son, who was living with Type 1 diabetes, resulting in Kiano becoming legally blind and also living with significant mental health issues, could have been approved for MAiD.(3)

Kiano was approved as a Track 2 candidate for MAiD. Kiano’s family was never consulted, which is important since Kiano was living with depression and suicidal ideation.(3)

The family did not learn about his death until several days after his death.

If Kiano’s death was the only disturbing MAiD death then one might suggest that his death is an outlier, but in fact there have been many controversial MAiD deaths.

Instead of expanding MAiD further, Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing. 

The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

1. Colby Cosh, “Canada’s horrifying example causes UK to think twice about euthanasia,” (January 31, 2026), online: National Post,< https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-horrifying-example-causes-u-k-to-think-twice-about-euthanasia>

2. Dr Ramona Coelho, “Disabled Canadians should never feel compelled to die. Let’s given them the support they need to live,” (January 5, 2026), online: Macdonald Laurier Institute, <https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/disabled-canadians-should-never-feel-compelled-to-die-lets-give-them-the-support-they-need-to-live-ramona-coelho-in-the-hub/>

3. Sharon Kirkey, “A Doctor took my ‘son’: This 26 year-old was denied assisted death in Ontario but died by MAiD in BC,” (January 30, 2026), online: National Post, <My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.

International change projected from Alberta Bill 18

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I think it is fair to say that the world-wide euthanasia/assisted-suicide/medical-homicide debate has recently entered a new phase.

For as long as I can remember, a relentless click-clack, click-clack, click-clack, political ratchet sound had signalled "progress" in one direction alone: more legal jurisdictions; wider eligibility; increasingly limited access to real care.

Article: Alberta Bill 18 will provide limits to euthanasia (MAiD) (Read).

Our victories were counted in the defeat of euthanasia and assisted suicide bills. And, even while celebrating, we knew that the same people would be back, next year, in the same states or countries, with the same bills (or perhaps something even worse).

In the last few years, huge chunks of cultural geography seemed poised to totter all at once, notably including the entire British diaspora of UK, Wales, Scotland, the Chanel Islands, Australia, New Zealand, and of course, Canada. France too, had lately joined the contest, along with the rest of Southern Europe. And in the US the "progressive" bastions of Illinois, and New York, finally managed to eke out a long awaited pro-death majority.

But now, it would seem that the winds may indeed be changing. For although its former satellites --Australia, Canada, and more-- have indeed forged ahead in radical fashion, The UK itself including all its main constituents (England, Scotland) has not. And while France has been teetering for years, against all lucid prediction: it teeters still.

And then something amazing occurred. Slovenian legislators legalized euthanasia in July 2025, according to the same "the fix is in" international playbook that we see advanced elsewhere. But the Slovenian people suddenly rose up and reversed that decision with a binding referendum, in November of the same year!

Apparently, this tiny victory, in a nation of only 2 million souls, is destined to be recorded in history as that first infinitesimal crack in an apparently indestructible wall, which clearly foretells (for those who can read the signs) a future collapse of the entire structure. For in this instance, a euthanasia legalizing initiative was not merely postponed, but frankly rolled back.

To be clear on this point: unlike any number of American States, Slovenians will not face a new euthanasia initiative next year. And this, in exactly the same way that an overturned US Supreme Court decision never results in new legislation, to the same effect, for at least a generation.

Quite frankly, I think most people assumed (or at least feared) that this victory would be a one-off, and that the death-cult steam-roller would continue unabated as before.

But now we have Alberta, one of ten Canadian Provinces which suddenly says:

"No, Canada may render an extended practice of legal euthanasia, but the Province of Alberta will limit such practice within the bounds of public healthcare."

Once again, as in Slovenia, what is already legal (and in the Canadian context what had been actual practice going back five years) will be halted. Not a prevention. A roll-back!

In a little while it will be appropriate to say something more specific about the meaning of Alberta Bill 18 for Canada, and especially, for other Canadian Provinces. But for today, I would simply like to make two international remarks.

First: it can be done!

Defeating a Bill in your jurisdiction is not necessarily a temporary victory. It is possible that you have stopped this madness permanently. And furthermore --just as in Slovenia and Alberta-- even losing is not the end of rational hope. Evil policy can actually be reversed. We have the proof!

My second remark, however, is more sobering: The popping of champagne corks, that we hear in Canada today, is to celebrate rolling back the demented policy of that nation in only one of ten Provinces; and even there, only to the original state of euthanasia law in 2016, which was then the most radical in the world.

The number one lesson of Alberta, in the US and around the world, is therefore this:

If you do not wish to find yourself in a similar situation to that described, it is imperative to invest yourself, now, in the struggle to prevent any legalization, whatsoever, in whatever jurisdiction you cherish as your home.

UK assisted suicide bill will likely die in the House of Lords.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Harry Farley, a political correspondent for BBC news wrote a commentary on the likely death of the Leadbeater UK assisted suicide bill. Farley's article provides significant information about what is happening within the British Labour party concerning the assisted suicide bill.

The article states that 100 Labour MP's warned Keir Starmer, Britain's Labour Prime Minister, that:

failing to pass assisted dying legislation would undermine trust in politics

Starmer has put significant political capital into the passing of the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. Even though it is a private members bill, Starmer provided Kim Leadbeater with extra parliamentary staff to enable her to carry and pass the bill. It must be noted that Starmer is a long-time supporter of assisted suicide.

Now that Scotland's assisted suicide bill has been defeated with members who oppose assisted suicide and members who support assisted suicide but didn't support the McArthur assisted suicide bill.

Similar to the defeat of the Scottish assisted suicide bill, the UK assisted suicide bill has stalled in the House of Lords, based on opposition to assisted suicide but also based on the language of the bill. Farley explains:

The current bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales was passed by the Commons in June last year but has been stalled in the House of Lords for months and is now unlikely to pass.

Opponents warn the bill is flawed and any attempt to push it through would be unsafe and would harm vulnerable people. Downing Street (the Prime Minister) has previously said it was a matter for parliament.

Members of the House of Lords are trying to amend the bill. Farley writes:

Supporters now believe it is "effectively impossible" for the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales to pass before the end of this session, expected in May.

This is largely because more than 1,200 amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords, principally from opponents to the legislation.

With only three of 14 days of debate in the Lords remaining, around half of the amendments are yet to be discussed.

Farley spoke to Jess Asato, a Labour MP who opposes the assisted suicide bill who stated:

"The sponsor of the bill has rejected 99% of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues."

"Any MP that voted to push this bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people."

Farley interviewed a source working with Labour opponents to the assisted suicide bill who said:

"For Labour MPs to continue to agitate for this unsafe, badly written and divisive bill rather than focus on the reasons people voted for us at the election is madness.

"Labour needs to work on delivering on our manifesto and running the country well, not rerunning contentious arguments about assisted dying."

With the defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, it is more likely that the Leadbeater UK assisted suicide bill, that would legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, will also die a natural death.

But as Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing stated concerning Scotland's assisted suicide bill:

We will need your help again in the future (“this is coming back”).

We hope that the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill will soon be declared dead, but the battle will continue as we await the next attempt in the UK, and other places, to legalize the killing of people at a vulnerable time of their life.

Great news: Scotland's Parliament rejected assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have amazing news.

On March 17, Scotland's parliament voted 69 to 57 to reject Liam McArthur's assisted suicide bill. This is a great victory after the same bill was passed at second reading, in May 2025, by a vote of 70 to 56.

The defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill follows the death of the England / Wales Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that has essentially died in the British House of Lords.

Megan Bonar reported for BBC Scotland that Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, expressed relief.

“Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled, can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.

“Parliament’s first responsibility is to protect its most vulnerable citizens from exploitation and abuse by those who may have a financial or emotional interest in their deaths.”

Angus Cochrane reported for BBC that:

Independent MSP Jeremy Balfour - born with no left arm and a right arm that ends at the elbow - said disabled people were "terrified" of assisted dying legislation.

He warned the bill would open "a pandora's box" and said there could be "no meaningful protection" against coercion.

"I'm begging you to consider the consequences for the most vulnerable," Balfour said.

Labour's Pam Duncan-Glancy, who uses a wheelchair, urged MSPs to "choose to make it easier to live than to die".

Others raised questions about protections for medics who did not want to participate in assisted dying, and a lack of oversight on doctors who would sign off on the process.

Critics also argued the focus should be on improving palliative care.

The SNP's Ruth Maguire, while also citing concerns about the cost of the proposals, said: "It's not a free choice if you do not have access to good palliative care."

Most medical associations and medical professionals opposed the assisted suicide bill especially after McArthur was forced to acknowledge that Scotland's parliament did not have the legislative right to ensure conscience rights for medical professionals.

Scottish legislators also faced significant pressure in dealing with the reality of Canada's expanive euthanasia law. Last week Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party switched his position on the assisted suicide bill and stated:

The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.

It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.

We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life.

Clearly Findlay was referring to Canada's experience with euthanasia.

This is the third time that Scotland's parliament defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide. In 2010 Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide bill was defeated by 85 to 16. Patrick Harvie took up the assisted suicide bill in 2014 with that bill being defeated by a vote of 82 to 36 in 2015.

Dr Gordon Macdonald stated in his Care Not Killing Alliance email that:

This has very much been a marathon, not a sprint, but our supporters have time and again answered the call to engage with MSPs and in so doing laid the groundwork for so many to vote as they did tonight. We will need your help again in the future (“this is coming back”, Liam McArthur told journalists this evening) but for now: Thank you.

The defeat of the McArthur assisted suicide bill is a great victory. The experience in all jurisdictions is that legalizing assisted suicide always results in an expansion of the law. Legalizing assisted killing for some situations will always expand to include more reasons to kill. We are thankful that the Scottish parliament voted NO to assisted suicide.

Scottish Conservative Leader now opposes assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Scottish Parliament

Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party has switched his position on the assisted suicide bill that is scheduled to go to a vote on March 17, 2026.

In May 2025, Finlay voted in favour of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, time had passed by a vote of 70 - 56. The Herald reported that Findlay backed the general principle of the bill but is now opposing the bill.

According to Andrew Learmonth who writes for the Herald, Finlay is the third MSP who supported the bill and now oppose the bill. Colin Smyth, who also supported the bill, has been suspended from parliament while being investigated for possessing indecent images of children and voyerism.

Findlay stated on X that:

"However, at the time of voting for the principle of the legislation at State One I also expressed some misgivings about elements of it.

...I am not able to vote for the bill at stage three.

My reasons include the two primary concerns that I raised at Stage One.

The first is that risk that people could be coerced into ending their own lives. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a loving supportive family.

There are already cases of unscrupulous relatives, or 'trusted' medical or legal professionals, exploiting people for financial gain. As a journalist, I reported on the harm caused by Scotland's system of legal self-regulation which remains woefully inadequate in terms of consumer protection.

And even without any coercion from others, some people may feel pressured because they think they have become a 'burden' on loved ones.

The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.

It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.

We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life. 

Findlay also commented on the fact that Scotland's assisted suicide bill cannot protect conscience rights for health professionals since medical regulation is the pervue of the British parliament.

We thank Russell Findlay for changing his position on the dangerous assisted suicide bill. I suggest that his two primary concerns cannot be limited by a tighter bill, but should always be seen as strong reasons for defeating life and death assisted suicide legislation.

Defeating the UK assisted suicide bills. Victory is close.

The following is the report from Dr Gordon Macdonald the CEO of Care NOT Killing in the UK, a leading group opposing the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK, Scotland and the British Isles.

Care NOT Killing needs donations to stop assisted suicide legalization in the UK (Donation Link).

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald

I am delighted to report that the fruits of many months of campaigning could be about to pay off.

FIRST: England & Wales (Westminster)

Victory is now a real possibility.

Concerns over the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords are growing.

Peers deserve great credit for refusing to be railroaded into rushing the Bill through the House of Lords.

They are coming under huge pressure from our opponents.

They are being wrongly accused of ‘filibustering’ (a term from US politics to describe deliberately blocking legislation by endless debating so that time runs out and it falls).

In fact, what is being misleadingly cast as blocking tactics is simply Parliamentary due diligence.

As one senior Labour MP put it:

“It [the Leadbeater Bill] only just scraped through the Commons by 23 votes because MPs were told that the Lords would scrutinise it carefully.

And that’s what the Lords are doing, with every debate revealing more holes and more problems with this proposed law.”

In addition, a More in Common poll published last week found fewer than half of those questioned (44%) expressed the belief that the House of Lords is deliberately trying to delay the Bill rather than taking time to go through legitimate concerns.

Experts and professional groups that have opposed or raised significant concerns include:

• The Royal College of Pathologists warned that its members would have to “review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do.” That could include probing whether safeguards were followed or if there was coercion, deception or other serious issues at play.
• The Association for Palliative Medicine, representing over 1,300 palliative medicine doctors in the UK, has stated it “opposes any change in the law to license doctors to supply or administer lethal drugs to a patient to enable them to take their own life.”
• The British Geriatrics Society reported that many of its members are “not confident that effective legal safeguards could be developed to protect older people from unwarranted harms.”
• Academics and Barristers: 73 leading academic experts in the fields of health, end-of-life care and the law signed an open letter to MPs warning that the Bill's safeguards are insufficient and would put vulnerable people at risk.

The Academics and Barristers emphasised that the dangers of allowing individual autonomy to trump all other considerations, the letter warned:

“Laws must be concerned for the safety of the whole population, especially the most vulnerable.”

It also noted that “research has shown that a person’s stated wish to die is frequently unstable and depends on the care and support they receive [or lack of]”.

Former President of the Family Division of the High Court, the late Sir James Munby, stated the Bill falls "lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards".

Former Chief Coroner of England and Wales, Thomas Teague KC, has warned that a key provision in the Bill would prevent coroners from routinely investigating assisted deaths as they would other unnatural deaths, potentially allowing cases of coercion to go undetected.

Disability Rights Groups: multiple disability rights organisations have opposed the Bill, citing concerns that it could put pressure on disabled and vulnerable people to end their lives.

The National Down Syndrome Policy Group has warned that every person with Down Syndrome would be eligible for assisted suicide under the Bill.

Illustrating how dangerous a step this would be, a professional who works with people with Down Syndrome warned:

“Years ago, I did a benefit appeal for a client with Down syndrome.

He was so suggestible [that] he agreed with the benefits assessor that he could successfully navigate across town.

I got the same positive answer when I asked if he could fly an aeroplane.”

The list goes on.

As things stand, the Bill is set to run out of time and fall.

It looks unlikely that Peers will have time to debate all the proposed amendments before the current Parliamentary session ends (late April/early May).

When a session ends, any legislation that has not completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament is generally 'lost' and must start from scratch in the new session.

We must guard against complacency

However, it is too soon to celebrate victory, because:

1. Our opponents are threatening to use the Parliament Acts

These allow the House of Commons to bypass the House of Lords should it repeatedly block a public bill. The Bill’s supporters could circumvent the Lords altogether—avoiding its scrutiny—by reintroducing the Leadbeater Bill in the House of Commons at the next session of Parliament (May 2026), then (if it passes) seek Royal Assent without the Lords’ consent.

• This would require MPs to pass the Bill in the same form it last left the Commons. It could include Lords’ changes from this session, but most of the changes currently under discussion (a) won’t be voted on until report stage, and (b) have in any case been rebuffed by Lord Falconer.

2. Disgruntled opponents could push legislation through in other ways

Presently, some are working to weaken the House of Lords’ powers to scrutinise legislation.

• The Observer reported this month that a new All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for “wholesale” House of Lords reform is being set up by pro-assisted suicide MPs Simon Opher and Kit Malthouse.

The new APPG will look at “how a minority of peers have been able to use filibustering to block a bill”.

(FACT CHECK: a firm majority – around two-thirds – of the 160 Peers who spoke or else were represented across two days of the Second Reading debate last September expressed opposition to the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill.)

While APPGs have no official law-making powers, when they are well-funded – as pro-Bill groups tend to be – they can have considerable influence among fellow politicians and feed friendly media outlets propaganda to print and broadcast.

The coming weeks and months will be crucial.

Winning the media war is vital.

We are bracing for media attacks on those Peers who refuse to be bullied into allowing vulnerable people to be abandoned to systematic killing or see the ‘checking and balancing’ role of the House of Lords undermined.

Indeed, former Telegraph and Spectator editor Lord Moore, warned in December that lobbyists working for our opponents are already attempting to influence the debate in Parliament:

“I know very well what happens—how to recognise when we’re being pushed to do a story.

“In the last two weeks, all the British media have been pressed very hard, by lobbyists in favour of this [Leadbeater] Bill, to produce a series of highly contentious arguments which attack anybody who tries to debate this Bill fully.”

SECOND: Scotland (McArthur) Bill

Major question marks also hang over the Scottish assisted suicide bill.

1. With the McArthur bill set to be voted on again on 17th March, just 7 weeks before the Scottish Parliament election, Holyrood proponents of that bill are getting nervous. Many MSPs who have doubts about the bill are worried that this might be an election-defining issue for many of their constituents.
2. The Health Committee at Holyrood wrote to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as important legal questions have arisen as to the Bill’s compatibility with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
3. Provisions for the protection of conscientious objection rights for NHS clinical staff — those who would be tasked with carrying out assisted deaths — will have to be stripped out of the Bill at Stage 3 in March because medical regulation is a power over which Holyrood has no legislative competence.

This could be a major stumbling block for our opponents as the area of employment rights is a matter reserved for the UK Government, whose approval would be required before the Bill could come into force. Already, some MSPs who voted for the bill at Stage 1 are expressing concerns about the conscience protection for medics and nurses being removed from the Bill.

BUT should these legal wrangles be settled in time and the final (Stage 3) vote scheduled for mid-March be lost, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill would pass.

Should that happen, our opponents would gain valuable political capital for law change south of the border, arguing on ‘equality’ grounds that the people in other parts of Great Britain (including England and Wales) should also be legally entitled to an assisted death.

The best outcome would be for the Scottish bill to be voted down next month.

The final vote is expected to be very close.

A CNK social media campaign targeted at Scottish voters is a major priority.

We urgently need Scots to contact their MSPs to make their concerns over the Bill clear, and with the Scottish elections due in May, there couldn’t be a better time to make their case.

THIRD: Isle of Man

The Isle of Man’s landmark Assisted Dying Bill – the first to be passed in Great Britain – is being held up.

It needs to secure Royal Assent before the end of the current administration (September 2026) before it can come into force.

But this may NOT happen.

Major development

Last year, I wrote to the then-Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood, arguing that the Manx Bill contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights.

I pointed out that, should the Lord Chancellor recommend the Bill for Royal Assent (the final stage in a bill becoming law), it may breach the UK’s international obligations.

The Manx bill requires the UK government’s approval before it can receive Royal Assent.

Last week, the island's Chief Minister, Alfred Cannan, announced that the UK Ministry of Justice had asked for clarification on codes of practice to accompany the Manx bill, regarding matters relating to human rights law compliance mentioned in my letter, specifically:

• Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which upholds the ‘right to life’

The MOJ has also asked for clarification about capacity legislation in the Isle of Man. Mr Cannan stated that the Bill “…cannot commence until safeguards, oversight mechanisms and protections are in place…”

If amendments have to be made on the face of the bill, the proposed legislation would need to be debated again by the House of Keys, and considered also by the Legislative Council, the upper chamber of the Manx Parliament (Tynwald). At present, the two Governments are considering a Code of Practice which CNK believes is insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 2.

Care NOT Killing needs donations to stop assisted suicide from being legalized in the UK (Donation Link).

Scottish Proposal Would Ban Assisted Suicide Prevention

This article was published by National Review online on October 31, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Assisted suicide is not legal in Scotland — I have traveled there three times to fight that agenda — but it is a looming threat again. And now, an amendment to the legalization bill has been proposed that would prohibit prevention efforts at or near places where suicidal people’s lives would be ended. From the ADF International press release:

A Scottish parliamentarian and member of the Health Committee, Patrick Harvie MSP, has proposed an amendment to Scotland’s controversial “assisted suicide” bill that would criminalise discussion of suicide prevention within a large, undefined public area surrounding any building where an assisted suicide might take place.

The vague proposal would forbid any attempts to “influence” a person’s decision to undergo an assisted suicide, such as through conversation with a family member or the display of a suicide prevention poster.

Holy cow! Is Scottish nihilism so thick that it would actually criminalize efforts to save lives? We’ll see. But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, as advocates oppose the right of medical conscience that would allow professionals to opt out of all complicity in killing patients or assisting their suicides.

Also, this would seem to imply that there will be assisted suicide clinics. And indeed, there is a “MAID house” in Canada where patients go to be killed.

What a world, what a world.

Response to Scotland assisted suicide bill: Disabled people are "not better off dead"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Liz Carr & Pam Duncan-Glancy

Craig Paton reported for the Independent on May 13, 2025 on the Not Dead Yet UK rally outside Holyrood (Scottish parliament) as the Liam McArthur assisted suicide bill was debated and voted on. 

The rally opposing assisted suicide featured actress Liz Carr and Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Paton reported that Silent Witness star Liz Carr told campaigners outside the Scottish Parliament that:

“I am so fed up of having to answer strangers’ questions, even in this day and age, who think that being us must be the worst thing imaginable,” she said to campaigners, which included a number of disabled people.

“That having pain, having difficulty with everyday activities, must mean that it would be better if we were dead – that is not the case.”

Paton reported that Liz Carr qualifies for assisted suicide under the bill.

“But it also has a definition that I would qualify under, I would define myself as a disabled person, but actually the definition of having a progressive condition, I would come under that.

“So the potential for this to include far more than just those with true terminal illnesses … those as well with degenerative conditions, is what concerns so many of us and so many of the people that are here today.”

Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, who strongly opposes assisted suicide, also spoke at the rally. Paton reported:

Addressing the dozens of campaigners outside Holyrood, Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “If any of my colleagues are in any doubt whatsoever, if in doubt: don’t.”

She added: “The risk is too high.

“And so I hope that my colleagues will listen carefully to that and will not support this legislation this afternoon.

“I know that I will, on behalf of all of you, go in there and fight for out lives.”

The bill passed at second reading by a vote of 70 to 56. The bill will now go to committee and a final vote is expected later this year.

New Polling Reveals Strong Public Concern Over Assisted Dying Bill in Scotland

Media Release - Not Dead Yet UK

Today (Tuesday 13 May), the day on which MSPs will vote on The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, Not Dead Yet UK are publishing the results of polling conducted on our behalf by Whitestone Insights in relation to the views held by Scots on the impact of this proposed legislation.

The polling shows significant concern from Scots that introducing assisted dying will have a negative impact on disabled people, and shows even stronger concern from people polled who had disabilities. Online interviews were held between 2 and 7 May reaching 1088 people. 298 self-identified as having a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. This rises to over three (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

Disability groups have made it clear that Holyrood should not introduce assisted dying to Scotland but are being ignored by MSPs who appear to be intent on changing the law. Three-quarters (75%) of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide.This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

Pam Duncan-Glancy, MSP for Glasgow, said:

“These statistics show the public share my concerns that legalising assisted dying at a time when health and social care budgets are under sustained pressure is a real risk to people’s lives”

Comment from Mike Smith, former Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Chair of its Disability Committee and spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK said:

“It’s clear from this polling that a significant majority of Scots agree that disabled people’s lives will be threatened if this legislation is passed.

Coercion comes in many forms, whether it’s intentional or more subtle. Most Scots agree some disabled people could feel be encouraged to end their lives even if they don’t want to.

The very existence of this wide-reaching legislation itself would send a message from the state that it would be better for disabled people to opt for assisted suicide. This is hardly surprising when two thirds of people agree assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise.

In an environment where people struggle to access the health and social care they need to live a life with dignity, this is not the right time to be risking people’s lives.

The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. Nearly 90% of those with a view agree, yet many organisations representing disabled people feel their voices have been ignored in this debate.

In the survey results, disabled people were more likely to agree with every single statement.They know the reality of their lives and how hard they can be. Their voices must be heard and their fears not ignored.

Given 80% of Scots agree that improved access to care has to come before assisted suicide is considered, we urge all MSPs to vote against this bill next Tuesday. It is dangerous and will imperil people’s lives. MSPs should be protecting the right to life for the many whose voices are not as loud as the well-funded campaign to change the law.”

Highlights

Nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Scots agree that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised. Only 23% disagreed (Question 1a). This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c)

This rises to over three-quarters (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

55% of Scots agree to 27% disagree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

75% of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

54% of Scots agree, versus 28% who disagree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it. (Question 1f) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Another way of presenting - If ‘don’t knows’ are removed:

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, nearly three-quarters (72.2%) agreed that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised (Question 1a). This rises to 75.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, three-quarters (75.7%) agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to 80.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, 8 in 10 (80.2%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c) This rises to 84.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, over two-thirds (67.4%) agree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to 75.3% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, almost 9 in 10 (89.3%) agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 91.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, two-thirds (66%) agree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it.. (Question 1f)

This rises to 74.6% for people polled who had a disability.

Background information

Disabled Peoples Organisations in Scotland have come out strongly against the McArthur Bill.This included the following organisations that have issued a joint letter calling on MSPs to oppose the Bill:

• Disability Equality Scotland.
• Inclusion Scotland. 
• Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living. 
• Glasgow Disability Alliance. 
• People First. 
• Self Directed Support Scotland.

A Canadian man, Roger Foley, has written powerfully in the ‘Herald’ of his experience as a disabled man living in Canada (where the law changed in 2016):

“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested to me that I should end my life.”

Scotland cannot follow this path - the risk is too great, regardless of any good intent on the part of Liam McArthur.

Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime.

This article was published in the Scotland Herald on November 12, 2024 titled: Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's Assisted Dying regime.

By Dr Ramona Coelho

Twenty years ago, just out of medical school, I couldn’t have imagined that vulnerable patients might one day feel their suffering was so poorly dealt with that they'd ask their doctor to end their lives. Since our country, Canada, legalised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, we have seen over 60,000 MAiD deaths by 2023, with exponential yearly growth rates. Quebec’s recent report reveals that their MAiD annual death rate has surpassed 7%, and they can’t even assess the quality of palliative care provided.

The Canada I grew up in valued dignity and protected the vulnerable. Now, inadequate care and weak safeguards are pushing Canadians with disabilities toward assisted death. A recent report from an Ontario government committee I sit on confirms the warnings of Canadian and United Nations human rights experts: people are choosing death because they lack essential supports and services.

Take the report’s review of a man in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. Isolated, unemployed, and struggling with mental illness and addiction, he depended on family for housing and financial support.

Rather than receiving care for his mental health, a psychiatrist asked if he knew about MAiD. In the end, a MAiD provider personally drove him to the location where he ended his life — without input from his family, despite their deep concerns. Canada claims to have a social and health safety net, but in his case, was he not pushed toward death?

There are countless other stories like his — stories revealed in reports, the media, and those that I now frequently encounter first hand. Every time I hear them, I’m reminded that what was meant to be an exceptional option has come at an unacceptable cost.

I see patients who are trapped in a system that doesn’t care enough for them. For many, MAiD is the only “compassionate” option when palliative care, mental health support, and basic social services are inaccessible.

These stories are heart-wrenching, and they are far from rare. The report reviews the case of a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities who applied for MAiD because she couldn’t find housing that met her medical needs. She didn’t want to die — she wanted to live in a way that felt safe and supported. But when faced with few options, death seemed to be the only choice.

I care for many elderly and disabled patients, those battling loneliness, isolation, and the quiet anguish of feeling like a burden due to societal neglect. In Canada, MAiD is routinely raised to the elderly and disabled as a care option — sometimes even before palliative care is explored.

I recall a conversation with a man who felt he was no longer needed, that his family would be better off financially if he chose MAiD. I’ve also seen families pressuring elderly relatives, concerned about the financial burden of supporting them. It breaks my heart that, in Canada today, death can seem easier to arrange than creating a safe supportive community where everyone feels valued and connected.

As I prepare to testify in Scotland, I think of the patients I’ve seen swept along by a system that no longer protects them.

In 2016, MAiD was meant for those at the end of life, with reassurances that it would never be offered as a "solution" for social suffering. But those promises have crumbled, replaced by an increasing push for accessibility.

Today, in Ontario, most patients choosing MAiD who are not dying come from marginalised, poor backgrounds. They are younger, with a higher percentage being women (61%). These groups are more vulnerable, often suffering from social deprivation that could be treated with the right support, yet MAiD is offered as a quicker option than suicide prevention and care.

Worryingly, MAiD recipients often lack adequate mental health and disability supports. In Ontario, only 8.6% of those not dying who chose MAiD were offered housing support, and only 6% were offered income support. Those not dying but accessing MAiD are less likely to list an immediate family member as their next of kin — often naming a friend, lawyer, or healthcare provider instead, signalling a stark lack of social support.

The situation continues to worsen. When life’s difficulties become unbearable, MAiD is now presented as an answer, rather than addressing the root causes of despair. How have we, as a society, reached a point where death can sometimes be offered more easily and as a less costly solution than investing in social and mental health services, things that make life worthwhile?

Individual autonomy has been used as an argument to blow open access to MAiD. Mental illness as a sole medical condition to access MAiD will be allowed in 2027, and federal consultations about MAiD advance directives are currently underway.

Quebec has taken matters further, breaking the criminal code by allowing advance directives for MAiD, simply requesting non-prosecution for offenders. Our federal joint parliamentary committee on MAiD has recommended MAiD for children deemed capable of making their own healthcare decisions.

Look at Canada today and ask if this is the reality you want for your own people. Our experiences show that the road to legalising assisted dying is a slippery one. It starts with promises of compassion that have led to a system where some patients feel pushed toward death. This is the opposite of autonomy and choice – it is desperation and structural coercion to die. I would not wish this reality upon any nation.

If Scotland truly wants to offer compassion, it should strengthen palliative care and provide social support that help people live with dignity. Compassion is not offering death to those who feel like burdens or are lonely (which are highly cited reasons for choosing MAiD in Canada) — it’s lifting that burden by creating a society where people feel valued, and every person feels supported and safe.

Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho.

• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
• Canada's assisted dying regime should not be expanded to include children (Link).
• Euthanasia for those with mental illness should not be on the table (Link).

Dr Ramona Coelho is a family physician whose practice largely serves marginalised persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She presented evidence to Holyrood on Liam McArthur MSP's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor Allan House

Assisted suicide bills will be debated in Scotland and the UK this year. An article by Professor Allan House was published in The Herald on October 14. House examines Scotland's assisted suicide bill and concludes that the:

Bill falls far short of containing the sort of safeguards we would expect in any other area of care for people with serious physical illness or those who are suicidal. In my view, it is a danger to vulnerable people and should not be allowed to pass into law.

House provides excellent insight. He states:

Throughout my career, I’ve worked to help people struggling with the impact of serious illness who may feel overwhelmed, unsupported, or suicidal. My profession has had a united approach on this. We seek to alleviate suffering while protecting the vulnerable and suicidal.

In the debate about assisted suicide a common concern, even among those who support the idea in theory, is whether a particular piece of legislation can have sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people. I’ve studied McArthur's proposals closely and concluded that the safeguards outlined fail to offer any real reassurance to those worried about the risks.

House brings up a good example of how assisted suicide legislation fails. He writes:

To understand why, it helps to consider a case study. Picture a 45-year-old woman who’s lived with multiple sclerosis for ten years. She has had two relapses since her diagnosis but lives independently and uses a wheelchair for trips outside her house. Going to see her doctor one day, she says she feels like ending her life. How should the doctor respond?

Under our current approach, a doctor would seek to understand more. He or she would discuss the reasons for their patient’s thinking, her personal circumstances, and consider her history of physical or mental health problems. They would want to involve others such as a partner or next of kin. They may then advise a referral to a psychiatrist – especially if the doctor did not have expertise in responding to suicidal thoughts. Work towards a more hopeful outlook and rewarding life would follow.

House explains the problem with doctors assisting suicides. He writes:

There is an unresolvable dilemma at the core physician-assisted suicide legalisation: it requires doctors to prescribe fatal medication and oversee the resulting deaths while they are not responsible for the recipient’s healthcare more generally – with no apparent requirement to follow best medical practice, exercise a duty of care, and work to prevent suicide.

Professor Allan House is an emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry and a supporter of Better Way.