Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba

By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

Our Family's Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)

A Grandmother died by euthanasia (MAiD) with questionable competency and consent in Canada.

Key takeaways.

• The grandmother originally explicitely stated that she didn't want MAiD.
• The medical team convinced her to ask for MAiD when her grand daughter, the legal power of attorney, was on vacation.
• The Grandmother was approved even though she was unable to answer the competency questions. The Grandmother also had serious hearing issues making it hard for her to understand questions.
• The staff filled out the euthanasia forms and witnessesed the signature.

The following story was shared with permission.

This is our family's account of the systemic failures, lack of transparency, and profound procedural violations we witnessed during the final days of our beloved mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, Brigitte Stegemann, whom we lovingly called "GG."

We are sharing our story because what happened in GG's case was a severe breach of medical ethics, informed consent, and basic human dignity. Decisions of this magnitude demand absolute transparency, strict adherence to legal safeguards, and the meaningful involvement of designated family advocates. In GG’s case, the system failed on every single one of these fronts.

Everything that follows is a truthful account of how the care home and the attending physician systematically bypassed our family, ignored our legal standing, and pushed forward with ending GG's life against her previously stated wishes.

Background

Brigitte from earlier years.

Brigitte Stegemann ("GG") passed away through the MAID program on Friday, July 10, 2026.

GG was the mother of two children, Fritz and Karin. For more than twelve years, her granddaughter, Brigitte (who shares her name), devoted herself to GG's care and advocacy. Brigitte held legal Power of Attorney (POA) and served as the primary contact for all medical and personal care decisions.

Approximately five months before her death, GG was diagnosed with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer. For the last two years of her life, she resided at the long-term care facility.

Throughout her stay, Brigitte was contacted frequently by the home—often every day or every other day—to make decisions regarding GG's care. Whether the matter involved medications, treatments, appointments, or other aspects of daily living, the staff consistently relied on Brigitte to make or assist with important decisions on GG's behalf.

Approximately two months before GG's death, a meeting was held to discuss the possibility of MAID. At that time, GG clearly stated that she did not wish to pursue it. As a devout Christian, she explicitly expressed that MAID conflicted with her personal beliefs and faith.

Shortly afterward, Brigitte and her husband, Robert, left on a planned vacation. During their 10-day absence, Karin and her husband, Dave, visited GG regularly to ensure she was not alone.

Although Brigitte continued receiving frequent phone calls from the care home about routine decisions while she was away, she was never informed that additional discussions regarding MAID were taking place privately with GG. Instead, she was only advised that another formal meeting concerning MAID had been scheduled for after her return.

This blatant omission was the first major warning sign for our family. Given Brigitte's long-standing role as GG's advocate and Power of Attorney, it is indefensible that discussions about such a life-altering decision occurred entirely behind her back during that brief 10-day window, despite the home's daily communication with her on far less significant matters.

The MAID Meetings

During the final five days before Brigitte and Robert returned from vacation, Karin and Dave continued visiting GG regularly at the care home.

During those visits, they found her to be extremely weak and largely unresponsive. She would briefly awaken, sometimes only long enough to say her daughter's name, before drifting back to sleep. Because GG was completely deaf in her left ear and had very limited hearing in her right, communication was extremely difficult. Although her eyes were often open, she appeared to be looking past visitors rather than engaging in conversation. Dave shared his concerns with the rest of the family; based on what he had witnessed, he believed GG was nearing the natural end of her life regardless of medical intervention.

Monday, July 6, 2026

Our family attended the scheduled MAID meeting expecting to discuss the process with GG's physician.

To our surprise, GG appeared dramatically different from how she had only days earlier. She was sitting upright in bed, talking, smiling, and interacting. When Dave playfully pinched her toes, she laughed and raised her hands as though she wanted to box with him. Seeing such a sudden, dramatic improvement left us confused and raised serious questions about why she had appeared so heavily sedated during the previous several days.

Driven by deep suspicion over this inexplicable turnaround, Brigitte later requested GG’s Medication Administration Record (MAR) log on Wednesday to audit her chemical baseline. Surprisingly, the facility’s official records reflected that the exact same dosage of medication had been administered every single day. This left our family with a profound contradiction: either the home's paperwork did not accurately reflect what was actually being injected into her system, or the clinical team had actively exploited a brief, completely anomalous window of temporary alertness to rush through a permanent evaluation that entirely misrepresented GG's true, unresponsive everyday baseline.

Before the physician arrived, an administrator and a registered nurse from the facility entered the room and advised us that the doctor was running behind schedule.

During this conversation, which took place entirely inside GG's room in her immediate presence, Brigitte asked who had arranged the MAID meeting. No clear answer was ever given. Instead, the family was met with an immediate wall of defensiveness, specifically from the registered nurse. The nurse informed the family that staff had met privately with GG on two occasions during Brigitte's 10-day vacation to discuss MAID.

Brigitte asked why those discussions had been initiated when GG had previously declined MAID due to her Christian beliefs. She asked point-blank whether these conversations were initiated by GG herself or by the facility staff.

The registered nurse became physically agitated and defensive, wagging her head back and forth as she spoke directly to Brigitte, stating, "I'm advocating for her."

When Brigitte pushed further to find out exactly who brought up the conversation about MAID, the nurse snapped, "I don't need to tell you anything."

Brigitte countered that she had served as GG's advocate for over a decade, held Power of Attorney, and visited consistently, noting that she had never once encountered this particular nurse during her frequent visits. As the interaction grew increasingly hostile, Brigitte finally stated, "I don't understand where this attitude is coming from."

The nurse snapped back, "Well, you have attitude." At that point, Brigitte told the nurse she needed to leave the room and return only when she was composed. The nurse scoffed and stormed out.

As family members preparing to discuss the impending death of our grandmother, we found this volatile, unprofessional behaviour from a staff member completely unacceptable, particularly because this aggressive argument was brought directly into GG's room where she could see and hear the distress it was causing.

After the nurse left, the administrator remained. Brigitte explained that our family did not support MAID in GG's circumstances and expressed serious concerns that GG was not mentally capable of making such a significant decision independently. GG had lived for many years with what our family knew to be a lifelong, undiagnosed developmental or cognitive disability (which we suspected may have been on the autism spectrum), which deeply affected her processing, understanding, and decision-making.

The administrator then explained that the doctor would eventually need to be in the room completely private with GG. The administrator added, "Worst case, I can be in the room with her and the doctor." Brigitte immediately spoke up and refused, stating that the meeting should either be strictly between the doctor and GG, or, if any outside staff member was permitted to be present, Brigitte would be in the room as well. Brigitte was deeply concerned that GG would feel intensely pressured, overwhelmed, and cornered if she were outnumbered by authority figures from the facility, ultimately feeling as though she had no choice but to agree to their terms.

After waiting approximately ninety minutes, the administrator informed us that the physician could no longer attend due to an unexpected conflict, and the meeting was rescheduled for the following day.

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

The following day, we returned for the rescheduled meeting with the attending physician, Dr. K.

Dr. K explained that she needed to determine whether GG possessed the capacity to make an informed decision regarding MAID. She began asking GG a series of questions in our presence.

What followed was a deeply alarming farce. Because of GG's severe hearing impairment, Dr. K had to repeat her questions several times, but the barrier was far more than physical hearing. Throughout the assessment, GG repeatedly provided objectively incorrect answers to basic, factual questions about her own life and immediate family.

When asked if she had any siblings, GG responded that she had none. The family immediately corrected the record, explaining that GG was the second-youngest of fourteen children. Dr. K then asked if any of her siblings were still alive, and GG again answered no. Once more, the family had to intervene and correct the information, explaining that some of her siblings were still living and that GG had spoken to one of them just the previous week. At this point, GG became completely disoriented and distressed. She began to cry, stating, "I forgot about the grandkids," visibly confusing her living siblings with her great-grandkids.

In fact, the family had to step in and correct the vast majority of the answers GG gave during the questioning. Brigitte explicitly objected to the evaluation right then and there, questioning Dr. K directly on how GG could possibly be deemed to have the capacity to consent to death when she could not accurately recount the most basic facts of her own family and was actively breaking down in confusion.

Despite these clear, undeniable indicators of cognitive disorientation and the family's direct objections, the assessment carried forward anyway.

Dr. K then explained MAID to GG in specific terms, describing it, to the best of our recollection, as receiving medication, feeling peace, falling asleep, and explicitly promising GG that she "would not lose control of her bowels." Our family was deeply unsettled by this framing. For an elderly individual of GG's demographic background and cognitive capacity, "medication" was a term conceptually linked entirely to healing, care, and relief. Describing a lethal injection as merely receiving medication—while focusing intensely on her specific, everyday fears of physical indignity—exploited her vulnerability, making it impossible for her to truly grasp that she was consenting to the active termination of her life. Before any further discussion took place, Dr. K instructed all family members to leave the room. Brigitte requested permission to remain, citing her role as long-time advocate and legal Power of Attorney. Her request was flatly denied, and the critical conversation between Dr. K and GG occurred entirely in private.

When Dr. K emerged from the room, she addressed the family and stated flatly, "I have deemed her capable of making her own decisions." She then informed us that GG had consented to proceed and that the procedure was scheduled for Friday, July 10, 2026.

Dr. K noted that she was required to meet in private because she wanted to ensure there was no underlying pressure or influence from the family. Brigitte challenged this reasoning directly, saying, "Well, we are concerned about pressure and influence from the home. Would that not be a concern of yours as well?"

Dr. K brushed the question off, replying that if that was the family's concern, they would have to take it up directly with the home. Brigitte asked why potential outside influence from the facility wouldn't be an automatic clinical concern for the doctor, rather than only suspiciousness directed at the family.

Our family left shocked and deeply distressed.

The Backwards Paperwork Timeline

What followed this meeting amplified our family's shock and exposed a staggering procedural failure. Legally and structurally, the formal written application for MAID must be signed by the patient and independently witnessed before final clinical assessments take place and a date for death is set.

Yet, in GG's case, the timeline was completely inverted. The procedure was scheduled on Tuesday, July 7th. It was only after this date had already been set—and despite the fact that Brigitte and Robert were at the facility visiting GG every single day—that the administration and staff at the care home took it upon themselves to fill out the official MAID paperwork and witness the signature for GG in secret.

They did not inform Brigitte that they were generating these legal documents after the fact, nor did they mention that they were actively witnessing them. They completely bypassed the family, executing the legal requests in the shadows despite our constant physical presence at the home. By declaring GG "capable" in that private meeting, the medical team utilized a highly controversial legal loophole within the MAID framework: if a clinician deems a patient mentally capable at the exact moment of an assessment, the patient's immediate voice legally supersedes any pre-existing Power of Attorney or previous directives. The facility used Dr. K's deeply flawed, fifteen-minute evaluation to effectively strip Brigitte of her legal standing as advocate, finalizing the paperwork in the shadows despite our constant physical presence at the home.

The Final Days

Following the July 7 meeting, our family struggled immensely to come to terms with what was unfolding.

On Wednesday, July 8, before the family went to visit GG, Brigitte received a phone call from the facility advising her that the MAID procedure was being moved ahead by a full day to Thursday, July 9, simply because the physician had an opening in her schedule.

Brigitte immediately objected over the phone and stated she was on her way to the facility immediately to discuss the matter. The home claimed that GG had already agreed to move the date.

When Brigitte and Robert arrived for their three-hour visit, Brigitte met with the home manager. She expressed how deeply perplexed she was that staff had gone directly to GG to alter the date of her death without consulting her advocate, knowing how many moving parts and final arrangements were still being sorted out. Brigitte stated plainly that the MAID program was being forcefully rammed down the family's throats, while the items of actual importance to GG were being brushed aside. Specifically, GG had consistently and strongly expressed that she wanted to be surrounded by her family during her final moments and desperately wanted her pastor to be present—wishes the care home treated as secondary to the physician's schedule.

It was during this exact conversation that the home manager admitted to Brigitte that she herself had personally filled out GG's official MAID application paperwork.

The home manager apologized directly to Brigitte for how things had been handled and asked what she could do to make the situation better. Brigitte looked her in the eye and responded plainly, "The damage is already done, and you have taken an awful situation and made it even worse." During this meeting, the manager also confirmed that the hostile registered nurse from Monday's incident had already been officially barred from entering GG's room immediately following the altercation, proving the administration knew the behaviour was entirely indefensible.

During the visit that followed, Brigitte sat with her grandmother and asked if she was entirely certain she wanted to go through with this on Friday.

GG appeared confused and visibly distressed. She responded with words to the effect of, "I'm going to die Friday? They're going to kill me Friday?" She wept for an extended period, repeatedly stating that she had made a mistake. Brigitte comforted her and reassured her that if she had changed her mind, she had the absolute right to tell the medical team on Friday that she did not want to proceed.

Because of the family’s strong opposition and immediate intervention, the facility backed down from moving the timeline, and the original date of Friday, July 10, at 11:00 a.m. was maintained.

Friday, July 10, 2026

Our family arrived at the care home at approximately 9:00 a.m. Rather than remaining inside the clinical walls, Karin and Brigitte helped GG into a wheelchair and brought her out to the patio so she could enjoy the fresh air, have a scoop of Strawberry Ice Cream (her favourite) and spend her final morning outdoors with the people she loved.

Within ten minutes, an administrator came outside and insisted that GG return to her room immediately so an intravenous (IV) line could be started. Brigitte firmly responded that the family was spending precious time together and that they would return when they were ready.

The administrator asked how long that would be. Brigitte replied, "As long as it takes." Brigitte then had to gently but firmly tell the administrator to leave the patio, stating that the family required privacy to spend this time together and that her presence was not needed.

The family was deeply perplexed and unsettled by the facility's aggressive rush, given that the MAID procedure was explicitly scheduled for 11:00 a.m. No clinical explanation was ever provided as to why the staff insisted on inserting the IV nearly two hours ahead of schedule, unnecessarily cutting short the family's final, peaceful moments together on the patio.

A short time later, GG's pastor joined the family on the patio. He prayed with us, spoke gently with GG, and provided the spiritual comfort she desperately needed.

At approximately 10:20 a.m., we returned GG to her room. The Administrator entered to begin the IV insertion. Distressingly, the Administrator asked Brigitte and Robert to physically assist her by handing her medical supplies. Given that the family was openly opposed to the procedure, being asked to actively participate in the preparation was insensitive and deeply upsetting.

Moments later, the entire family was called into the room. Upon entering, they were met with a shocking sight. There was a significant, alarming amount of blood covering GG, the bedding, and the surrounding area—the most blood Brigitte had ever seen resulting from a standard IV insertion in all her years of managing her grandmother's care.

Shortly afterward, Dr. K arrived. She attempted to speak with GG. By this point, GG was silent, her hands tightly clasped together in a fixed prayer position. GG never provided a verbal response to Dr. K.

Our family had been strictly assured that GG would be asked for a final, explicit verbal confirmation on the day of the procedure to ensure she still wished to proceed. When GG remained completely silent and gave no response, Brigitte felt a sudden wave of relief and a big smile came over her face, believing that the procedure would finally be halted because the strict requirement for final consent had not been met. Tragically, we were left alarmed and horrified when the clinical team completely ignored her silence and carried the procedure forward regardless.

As the medications were administered, we observed Dr. K encounter visible difficulty injecting one of the fluids through the IV line. She paused and exchanged a look with the administrator that strongly suggested a complication was occurring.

After the final medications were pushed, only a brief moment passed before Dr. K confirmed that GG was gone. The room fell completely silent. Our family said our final goodbyes to the matriarch we had protected, loved, and fought for over so many years.

Our Concerns and Our Demand for Accountability

What happened to Brigitte "GG" Stegemann was a systemic failure driven by clinical arrogance, a total lack of transparency, and a blatant disregard for the safeguards meant to protect vulnerable patients.

One of our greatest ethical concerns is that GG had explicitly declined MAID, stating it violated her Christian faith. Once a vulnerable patient explicitly declines this path, the facility should never have targeted her for re-evaluation behind closed doors while her primary advocate was away—especially when the facility had no trouble contacting Brigitte daily for minor, routine care decisions.

We are deeply alarmed by the absolute lack of transparency and independent oversight regarding the application process. The fact that the facility's internal staff took it upon themselves to fill out the official MAID paperwork and witness the signature themselves—completely bypassing Brigitte and Robert while they were visiting the care home every single day, and doing so after the procedure had already been scheduled—represents a profound violation of trust and a glaring conflict of interest. The safeguards built into the MAID program are legally mandated to protect vulnerable individuals from outside pressure. Instead, the facility acted as the initiator, the facilitator, and the witness to the legal request, intentionally keeping her designated Power of Attorney in the dark.

We also remain appalled by the assessment of GG's decision-making capacity. GG lived with a lifelong, apparent cognitive impairment. During a formal capacity assessment, the family had to correct the vast majority of her answers, including her inability to identify how many siblings she had or how many were still living. These glaring factual errors, her visible generational confusion and breakdown, and the family's immediate, vocal objections should have halted the process immediately for a comprehensive, independent psychological evaluation.

Furthermore, excluding a long-time advocate from the room during the final assessment, failing to halt the process when the patient expressed agonizing second thoughts and confusion days prior, and proceeding on the final morning without an audible, clear verbal consent from the patient are actions that defy the law.

An outside reader might wonder why our family did not legally halt the procedure that Friday morning. The answer is simple: the medical team had explicitly instructed us that only the patient has the right to rescind consent once deemed capable, but they strictly promised us that GG would be required to give an explicit, final verbal confirmation right before the injection was administered. We trusted that this mandatory legal safeguard would protect her. We never could have anticipated that when she remained entirely silent, the clinical team would simply ignore the law and push the medication anyway.

The events of GG's final morning—being forced to assist with the medical preparation, witnessing a messy and bloody IV complication, and watching the procedure continue while GG sat silently in a prayer position—have left a lasting trauma on our family.

Grief does not erase these documented lapses in transparency, nor does it excuse a system that felt entirely rushed, defensive, and calculated. We will forever live with the painful uncertainty of how long GG might have lived comfortably had nature been allowed to take its course.

We share this account in loving memory of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann. We hope her story serves as a warning and an urgent call for greater clinical transparency, mandatory family inclusion for cognitively vulnerable patients, and strict legal accountability for facilities that operate outside the law.

Submitted in memory of GG by her family

Death by Organ Donation pushed in Medical Journal.

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

By Wesley J Smith

The legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia corrupts medical ethics and not just because killing patients or assisting their suicides is a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath. No: Transforming sick and disabled people into a killable caste also objectifies them as potential natural resources to be mined or harvested.

Hastened death and organ-harvesting have already been conjoined in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. (In the latter two countries, some cases have involved mentally ill patients.) The practice has been supported in prominent medical journals. It is not alarmism to note that the idea is gaining ever wider acceptance among the medical and bioethics intelligentsia. 

But killing and then harvesting doesn’t go far enough for some mainstream bioethicists. Where euthanasia is legal, they don’t see why organ procurement can’t also be the means of death for patients who want to donate. In other words, don’t just kill and then harvest; harvest to kill.

Oh, Wesley! That would never be allowed!

No? The proposal was just pushed with all due respect in the world’s most influential medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, written by three prominent bioethicist-physicians (two of whom are from Harvard: all bow).

First, the authors correctly note that the “dead donor rule” — the prime ethical directive in organ transplant medicine — requires that vital organ donors to be dead before organ retrieval (let’s not get into the brain death controversy here). Moreover, it forbids organ procurement from being the cause of death.

But with the increasing legalization of euthanasia, the bioethicists urge a dramatic loosening of that foundational legal requirement. Where lethal jabs — death by homicide — are legal, they want the organ-harvesting itself to be the cause of death, what they call “death by organ donation.” From “Contextualizing the Dead Donor Rule in an Era of Voluntary Euthanasia“:

Voluntary euthanasia relies on this lawful waiver of the right to life under defined safeguards. This reasoning extends to organ donation after euthanasia, in which a patient knowingly consents to a death that will be followed by organ procurement. Organ donation after euthanasia creates a rare opportunity to honor end-of-life autonomy, since patients can articulate their own goals, including how their death might serve others.

Notice that they don’t call for suicide prevention. Once people can be lawfully killed, treating them as so many organ farms follows logically. But what to do about that pesky dead donor rule? Killing for organs may violate it, the authors admit, but it is within the spirit of righteous ethics, so loosening the rule can be “contextualized”:

In the context of voluntary euthanasia, in which patients provide first-person consent, trust doesn’t need to rest entirely on temporal sequencing. Voluntary euthanasia’s aim of relieving suffering with a humane end-of-life process aligns with the DDR’s concern for minimizing harm. When properly safeguarded, death by organ donation violates the Death Requirement without necessarily violating its underlying spirit of trust preservation and protecting patients from harm.

Baloney. Killing for organs can quickly become the primary reason for granting someone’s request to die “as a plum to society” (as I predicted back in 1993). Knowledge of that option can also be a material influence on whether and when a despairing person asks for euthanasia.

For example, a 16-year-old Belgian girl with brain cancer asked to be killed in part so that her organs could be harvested. She was put into a 36-hour coma — not for her medical benefit but to conduct needed tissue tests and find suitable recipients. The bioethicists claim that respect for patient autonomy should permit killing for organs:

Although death by organ donation may be viewed as a departure from the DDR, shifting focus away from the temporal relationship to death determination, we interpret it as consistent with a historical pattern of recontextualization. In the setting of regulated voluntary euthanasia and organ donation after euthanasia, death by organ donation warrants open, transparent dialogue. Since patients requesting voluntary euthanasia can provide first-person consent and articulate their values, that option might offer a unique opportunity to respect their autonomous wishes by integrating donation into their end-of-life planning.

Well, why should that rationalization not apply also to any suicidal person? After all, if someone really wants to die, who are we to interfere with his or her “autonomous wishes” by setting parameters on what kind of suffering qualifies for death by organ donation? Besides, killing for organs would result in a better product:

Death by organ donation would enable cardiac donation, typically prohibited with DCD, and improve recipient outcomes by reducing warm ischemia time, thereby lowering primary graft-dysfunction rates to levels similar to those achieved with donation after brain death. In addition, it might substantially increase the donor pool, potentially saving many lives. Since death would be a chosen and inevitable outcome in these cases, enabling retrieval under ideal conditions represents a Pareto improvement: no one would be made worse off, and multiple lives might be saved.

The morality of our society would be much worse off. And so would the patients, because they would become objectified once consent was granted, even if the desire to donate is the reason for their request.

How respectable is this kill-to-harvest proposal becoming? It has been proposed before without much objection. It doesn’t get more prestigious than the NEJM. And it is now sufficiently mainstream for NPR to have featured one of the latest proposal’s authors, Dr. Robert D. Truog, in a respectful interview.

We live in very disturbing times.

France's Senate once again rejects euthanasia bill.

France's National Assembly will have a final vote on July 15

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's euthanasia bill was once again defeated on July 7 by France's Senate (third time) but based on France's constitution the euthanasia bill may still be passed into law by France's National Assembly on July 15.

We reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232.

We then reported on July 2 that France's Senate Social Affairs Committee proposed not to debate the euthanasia bill. There was logic to this proposal since the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate. 

We are thankful that France's Senate once again rejected the bill.

In the last few days there has been a scandal with Laurent Panifous, the Minister Delegate for Relations with Parliament, organizing a big euthanasia legalization party with government money, that has subsequently been cancelled.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee stated that this bill is like no other and using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

Sebastien Ostertag outlined the extent of France's euthanasia bill, that if passed would: 

• Catholic and otherwise Christian retirement homes and medical institutions will likely shut down since there is no conscience clause for religious institutions.
• Nurses and pharmacists can be forced to participate in euthanasia, since there is no conscience clause for them.
• Those who are poor and suffering may be pressured into death since access to palliative care isn't universal.
• The waiting/reflection period before death is only 48 hours.
• Estimates from France suggest that, based on France's population, 50,000 people could die every year from euthanasia.
• The family won't be able to ask the court to stop the decision to die.
• Proponents of the bill will likely push for further expansions, as in other jurisdictions, to allow children to be euthanized, people with mental illness and criminalizing those who try to dissuade someone from being killed.

Instead of competing with Canada's expansive and undefined killing by lethal poison law, France must examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject the bill. 

Québec legalized euthanasia in 2015 based on "exceptional circumstances". The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

New Zealand 2025 euthanasia report. Assisted deaths increase again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Zealand 2026 assisted dying report (April 1, 2025 - March 31, 2026) was recently released indicating that the number of reported assisted deaths increased to 486 reported assisted deaths up from 472 in the 2025 report (April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025) and 344 reported in the 2024 report.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in New Zealand in November 2021. The law allows doctor administered death (euthanasia) and self-ingestion (assisted suicide).

 

The 2026 report indicated that 460 of the 486 assisted deaths were carried-out by the doctor (euthanasia) which was up from 450 of the 472 assisted deaths being carried-out by the doctor (euthanasia) in 2025.

On November 11, 2025 I reported that New Zealand MP Todd Stephension introduced - The End of Life Choice Amendment Bill, a private members bill to expand the New Zealand assisted dying law.

What would the New Zealand euthanasia expansion bill (among other things) do?

• Amends the definition of who can do euthanasia by changing the terminology from attending medical practitioner to attending practitioner.
• Changes the terminal illness requirement to a person who has been diagnosed with a condition that is advanced, progressive, and, either on its own or in combination with 1 or more other diagnosed conditions, is expected to cause death. (Expected to cause death is not the same as a terminal illness with a 6 month prognosis).
• Eliminates conscience rights by forcing a medical practitioner to refer a person to the assisted dying service when they have received a request for assisted dying.

The New Zealand government may follow Canada's lead with plans to expand euthanasia to people who are not terminally ill. In fact the bills definition of who qualifies to be killed can be interpreted wide enough to include most people with disabilities.

In October 2020, New Zealand voters supported euthanasia based on specific legalization legislation. The law has only been in place since November 2021 and now there is a push to expand the legislation.

German doctor convicted of killing 15 patients but he likely killed many more.

The lethal poison drug combination was the same as used for euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bethany Bell reported for BBC news on July 8, 2026 that a German doctor was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing at least 15 patients.

Bell reported that:

A court in Berlin found the 41-year-old man, named only as Johannes M. in line with German privacy rules, guilty of murdering 12 women and 3 men between September 2021 and July 2024.

The authorities believe these killings could be just the tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors are currently investigating dozens of other incidents involving the doctor.

His victims were between the ages of 25 and 94. The court heard how they were all critically ill, but that their deaths were not imminent.

Prosecutors said that during home visits, the doctor administered a lethal combination of various medicines without his patients' consent.

On several occasions, they said he set fires to cover his tracks.

In July 2024, shortly before his arrest, prosecutors said the doctor killed two patients in a single day - a 75-year-old man at his home in central Berlin and, a few hours later, a 76-year-old woman in a neighbouring district.

They said the doctor tried to set fire to the woman's house, but failed. 

CBS News reported on July 8 that:

Presiding judge Sylvia Busch said the conviction for 15 murders may well be only a glimpse of his many crimes.

Prosecutors said during the proceedings that he was suspected of having killed more than 70 other people.

An article by Emily Atkinson that was published by the BBC on April 16, 2025, suggests that he used the similar drugs as are used for euthanasia:

He is accused of administering an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant to his patients without their knowledge or consent.

The relaxant "paralysed the respiratory muscles, leading to respiratory arrest and death within minutes", the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

Based on the way he killed his patients, they appear to have died in the same way as a euthanasia death. It is likely that the physician was trained by a euthanasia group. 

In 2019, Niels Högel, a nurse in Oldenburg, Germany, was convicted of murdering 85 patients from 2000 to 2005, and investigators suspect the true number of victims was far higher. Mr. Högel was found to have administered drug overdoses that caused cardiac arrest so that he could revive the patients and be celebrated as a hero.

Cases of medical homicide are not uncommon. Medical practitioners who have been convicted of murdering patients, include: Dr. Harold Shipman, Charles Cullen, Dr Virginia Soares de Souza, Aino Nykopp-Koski and Dr. Michael Swango.

Professor Christopher Lyon, who teaches at the University of York (UK) published a research paper on August 2, 2024 stating that Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law enables healthcare serial killers (HSK).

It is not safe to give doctors, or others, the right in law to kill people.

When a nation legalizes euthanasia, it gives medical professionals, who were already killing their patients, the legal right to proceed.

Norwegian who was convicted of murder is now convicted of assisting a suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Norwegian man who was first convicted of murder when he was 15 years-old has been convicted of assisting the suicide of a woman in Sweden.

Steinar Wangen (55), who calls himself a "euthanasia activist" was already in prison for assisting the suicide of of a 76-year-old woman in Strömstad Sweden.

Wangen was convicted of murder last Friday.  Newsinenglish.no reported on July 6, 2026 that:

...a Norwegian court in Vestfold convicted him on Friday of murdering another woman in Sweden (Trollhättan), who allegedly wanted to die, by holding a pillow over her face after she’d consumed sleeping pills and alcohol. His trial took place in Tønsberg, Norway because that’s where he lived when he established contact with the Swedish woman.

Using a pillow is murder. The Newsinenglish.no article stated:

Norwegian prosecutors sought and received a 15-year prison term for Wangen with forvaring, which means a judge must determine every 10 years or so whether he still poses a threat to society. Wangen denies he helped kill the woman in Trollhättan and appealed on the spot.

An interview that was published by svt.se on June 16, 2026, that, in the past, Wangen had been acquitted for assisting the suicides of four people in Sweden. In the interview:

Steinar Wangen calls himself an "euthanasia activist" and has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

The family of the 7 year old girl who Wangen killed when he was 15 referred to him in their book as a

“A cold-blooded and calculating person.”

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide (medical killing) creates the perfect cover for murder.

France's Senate may decide not to debate euthanasia bill.

France's Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232. 

 

In the article I explained that France's National Assembly has twice passed similar euthanasia bills and each time France's Senate defeated the bills. 

Even if France's Senate defeats the euthanasia bill again, the National Assembly can over-ride the vote and legalize euthanasia.

On May 11, 2026, France's Senate defeated the euthanasia bill by a vote of 151 to 118 and then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the section of the bill that improves access to palliative care.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

France's Senate Social Affairs Committee has proposed to not debate the euthanasia bill. There is logic to this proposal based on the fact that the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate, nonetheless, the Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

From France's Senate Social Affairs Committee - Based on the different perspectives between France's National Assembly the Senate - Ms. BONFANTI-DOSSAT and Mr. MILON proposed on June 30 (google translated):

Pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure, the Senate decides that there is no need to continue the deliberation on the bill, adopted by the National Assembly on second reading, relating to the right to assisted dying (No. 814, 2025-2026).

The Senate proposal continues (google translated):

Noting the political impasse resulting from the Senate's rejection, on two occasions, of the bill relating to the right to assisted dying and the failure of the joint committee, this motion aims to oppose the preliminary question to the bill adopted by the National Assembly on second reading no. 814 (2025-2026).

The parliamentary back-and-forth revealed the extent of the divisions caused by the introduction of a form of assisted dying, both within each chamber and between the chambers.

The commission and the National Assembly have, in fact, defended diametrically opposed conceptions of end-of-life care.

Far from making assisted dying an exceptional measure, the National Assembly has stubbornly defended a particularly broad interpretation, establishing assisted suicide and euthanasia as widely accessible rights, based on criteria whose scope and imprecision pave the way for a certain expansion of the system. The beginnings of this dynamic have already been observed during parliamentary debates: the National Assembly came very close to authorizing recourse to euthanasia even in the absence of any incapacity on the part of the individual to self-administer the substance.

The Senate proposal outlined the attempt to find a compromise and reiterates how the bill passed in the National Assembly is wide in scope and lacks definition. The Senate proposal continued:

The Senate's rejection of the text on two occasions prevented the debate, which the commission nevertheless deemed necessary to initiate with the National Assembly, from flourishing, in order to restrict the scope of eligibility of persons and secure procedural guarantees.

In this context, it is clear that the National Assembly has paid little attention to the work of the commission.

The eligibility criteria remained unchanged. The repeated refusal to regulate the life expectancy of eligible individuals, which alone could have guaranteed that assisted dying would be reserved for genuine end-of-life situations, demonstrates the National Assembly's desire to make this text a law for those who want to die, and not a law for those who are going to die, contrary to the position defended by the committee.

The National Assembly also remained deaf to the committee's concerns regarding the strengthening of procedural safeguards. For example, assessing the free and informed nature of a patient's wishes, which cannot be duly verified by a single physician after a single consultation, would have required systematic psychiatric evaluation. The text submitted to the Senate does not provide for this.

While some specific initiatives from the commission were adopted—regarding the involvement of relatives, securing the system for protected adults, and regulating the locations where lethal substances are administered—the National Assembly remained unmoved by the most fundamental concerns, which the rapporteurs had nevertheless shared during the joint committee meeting. Neither strengthening the collegial nature of the decision-making process, nor the mandatory participation of a mental health professional within the panel, nor even the establishment of genuine mechanisms for ex-ante or in-depth oversight were adopted.

Therefore, the text submitted to the Senate would lead to France having one of the most permissive procedures in the world and, in any case, insufficiently rigorous to guarantee a robust assessment of eligibility criteria.

The rapporteurs can only note the irreconcilable divisions between the committee's vision and that defended by the National Assembly, which render any attempt at reaching a compromise futile at this stage of the procedure. The tabling of this preliminary motion reflects their refusal to endorse the illusion of a parliamentary dialogue whose outcome would be certain if the text were to be put to a final reading in the National Assembly.

It is now up to the Government to fully grasp the extent of this political impasse. While all attempts at reconciliation have failed, the executive branch cannot ignore the clear lack of parliamentary consensus surrounding this reform. This law is not like any other: because it involves some of the most fundamental anthropological, ethical, and societal choices, it cannot thrive in dissension and antagonism.

Faced with a similar situation, the United Kingdom chose to suspend the debate on introducing assisted dying. Wisdom would therefore dictate that the Government follow this example and end this fruitless back-and-forth, rather than using the constitutional means at its disposal to force through such a reform.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee points out that this bill is like no other, thus using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

Sebastien Ostertag outlined the extent of France's euthanasia bill, that if passed would: 

• Catholic and otherwise Christian retirement homes and medical institutions will likely shut down since there is no conscience clause for religious institutions.
• Nurses and pharmacists can be forced to participate in euthanasia, since there is no conscience clause for them.
• Those who are poor and suffering may be pressured into death since access to palliative care isn't universal.
• The waiting/reflection period before death is only 48 hours.
• Estimates from France suggest that, based on France's population, 50,000 people could die every year from euthanasia.
• The family won't be able to ask the court to stop the decision to die.
• Proponents of the bill will likely push for further expansions, as in other jurisdictions, to allow children to be euthanized, people with mental illness and criminalizing those who try to dissuade someone from being killed.

Instead of competing with Canada's expansive and undefined killing by lethal poison law, France must examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject the bill. 

Québec legalized euthanasia in 2015 based on "exceptional circumstances". The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Euthanasia complications challenge the "good death" narrative.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 27 an article by Brian Williams and Sharon Kirkey that was published by the London Free Press on May 27, 2026  reported on the euthanasia deaths by Dr James MacLean. 

Dr James MacLean is one of the few doctors to be sanctioned for unprofessional conduct related to his euthanasia deaths. One of the complaints included a euthanasia assessment that was done at a Tim Horton's coffee shop while another concerned a "botched" euthanasia death whereby MacLean declared the man dead, when he wasn't dead...

Sharon Kirkey wrote a difficult article that was published by the National Post on June 3, 2026 concerning euthanasia complications that challenges the "good death" paradigm that is sold by the euthanasia lobby. Kirkey wrote:

An Ontario man groaned, grimaced and repeated “help me” while undergoing doctor-assisted death after one of the drugs didn’t produce the anticipated level of sedation, initially leaving him conscious.

Kirkey suggests that people should be informed that some euthanasia deaths involve significant suffering.

Cases of MAID that do not proceed as planned were highlighted last week in media reports involving the 2024 death of Bradley Stewart, an Ontario man who resumed breathing after being pronounced dead by a London, Ont., family doctor and MAID provider — a traumatic experience his siblings who witnessed his mishandled death are still recovering from.

Brian Williams and Sharon Kirkey wrote in an article published by the London Free Press on May 27, 2026 that:

He’d (MacLean) ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops. But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

MacLean declared the man dead, when he wasn't dead. He left the scene of the crime. He was then informed that the victim wasn't dead yet, so MacLean returned and pumped him with more lethal poison. 

The family was traumatized.

Kirkey also reported about another case known as “Mr. D.,” an 87-year-old man with congestive heart failure who died by euthanasia in 2023. Kirkey describes the euthanasia death.

The MAID provision took place at his home, the same day he was transferred home from hospital.

Once settled, two intravenous sites were established.

The doctor administered the first drug, midazolam, a Valium-like sedative. Next lidocaine was injected to numb the vein and prepare it for the next injection, propofol, a coma-inducing drug that can burn and sting upon injection.

Midazolam is meant to put people in a deep state of relaxation. People often fall asleep.

However, “During the first three minutes. Mr. D experienced signs of physical and psychological distress, including groaning, guarding (tensing muscles) and grimacing,” reads the case review.

“Mr. D did not experience expected sedation” from the midazalom and remained conscious.

“His behavioural signs of distress escalated to repeated verbalizations, including ‘help me’ that continued until sedation was achieved with propofol and a comatose state was confirmed,” according to the case report.

Kirkey explains that the family experienced significant distress related to their father's euthanasia death:

“These unfortunate end-of-life circumstances created profound distress for the family. They witnessed their father suffering with physical and psychological distress and these final memories stay with them.”

The family “shared reflections such as powerlessness to change the course of their father’s final suffering, anguish regarding the decision to support their father through the MAID process and immense grief and sorrow regarding their final memories with their father,” according to the case review.

Studies show that complications with euthanasia do happen. Kirkey reports:

In a survey of 335 Canadian emergency doctors, three reported having seen MAID patients come to emergency because of IV failure.

A 2022 study of 3,557 MAID deaths in Ontario and Vancouver between 2016 and 2020 found complications in 41 cases (1.2 per cent). Most fell into one of two categories, the authors reported: obtaining or maintaining IV access, or prolonged time to death requiring a second kit of MAID medications.

Kirkey further describes the death of Bradley Stewart. Stewart, had liver cancer, had fell unconscious three days before his death. Kirkey reports:

MacLean was called to the house three days later, after Stewart had become unresponsive. Stewart was surrounded by his siblings, family members and friends. His three chihuahuas were perched on his bed. MacLean injected midazalom and propofol. But missing from his briefcase was a third drug that paralyzes the muscles and stops breathing. After injecting the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, he pronounced Stewart dead and left.

I questioned in my previous article, if MacLean used left-over drugs from a previous killing? After reading this article it is clear that MacLean used left-over drugs from previous killings.

Kirkey writes that the death had a profound effect on the family. The family was upset about the minimal penalty that MacLean received. Kirkey writes:

They’re angry that despite finding serious concerns with Maclean’s MAID practice — including a second complaint involving his assessment of a MAID patient outside a Tim Hortons — MacLean wasn’t brought before a disciplinary hearing by his licensing college. Instead, he agreed to a minimum of six months’ clinical supervision, among other voluntary undertakings. He is permitted to continue practising MAID.

“It literally was a slap on the wrist,” Townsend said.

“It shocks me because, in a lot of jobs, that’s the kind of action that would have got someone fired and yet they are literally saying it’s remediation,” Stewart-Mott said.

“They had the ability to suspend his doing MAID but never went down that road.”

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho a London family physician and former member of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s MAID death review committee. told Williams and Kirkey in the May 27 article:

“What is striking is not only the seriousness of the concerns identified in these cases, but the limited regulatory response,”

“The level of scrutiny and accountability applied to MAID is inconsistent with how other serious medical procedures are regulated,”

Dr Coelho commented on the notion that Canada's euthanasia law operates well.

The federal government “frequently points to the absence of criminal findings or disciplinary action as evidence that the MAID system is functioning safely,” she added.

“Cases such as these, along with those documented (by the coroner’s MAID death review committee) confirm that important gaps in oversight and accountability remain.”

The Chief Coroner of Ontario established the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee that published multiple reports underlining the concerns with the law. Even though that report found cases of people who had no actual medical condition or who died by euthanasia based on poverty or a lack of proper housing, none of those cases were then brought to the CPSO to determine if any sanctions should be applied to the doctors and nurse practitioners who caused those deaths.