Issues with lethal injection execution are similar to euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The NPR reported on September 28, 2026, in response to the botched lethal injection execution of Tony Carruthers on May 21, 2026 in Tennessee that a group of medical professionals sent a letter to Tennessee Governor Bill Lee stating that heathcare professionals should never assist with executions.

Austin Sarat reported for The Daily Mail on May 26, 2026 that:

On 21 May, Tony Carruthers had an experience that few others have had. He was taken to the execution chamber, where the state of Tennessee began the process of putting him to death, but it failed to finish what it started.

Carruthers was not killed and he lived to tell about it. He became the ninth person to survive a failed execution in the last 80 years.

Botched executions are by now quite common in the United States. But on most of those occasions, the people whose executions go awry end up dead.

Catherine Sweeney reported for NPR that Dr Robert Quinn, one of the doctors who sent the letter to Governor Lee, stated that doctors should never participate in an execution.

He says that for one thing, the Hippocratic oath says, do no harm, and ethical codes, like the one put out by the American Medical Association, explicitly bar doctors from participating in the death penalty. The letter calls on Governor Bill Lee to place a moratorium on the death penalty and overhaul the state's execution method. They don't think executions should resemble medicine or involve doctors, nurses, pharmacists, or anyone else in healthcare. Dr. John Greer also signed the letter.

The death penalty and euthanasia (MAiD) both contravene the Hippocratic oath which requires the doctor to do no harm. 

Catherine Sweeney continued her NPR report:

Under Tennessee's protocol, other health workers, like nurses or paramedics, place IVs into the prisoner's arms. If they can't find a vein, a doctor must step in to insert a plastic tube, or central line, in a deeper vein. Regarding Carruthers' failed execution in May, the doctor said what he experienced was torturous. The IV team tried to access veins in his arms and failed. They tried his hands and his feet. Then the doctor tried a central line in Carruthers' chest and shoulder. His attorney, Maria DeLiberato, said blood was oozing from his puncture wounds.

...Finally, the governor's office called the prison. The governor was ordering them to stop. He gave Carruthers a one-year reprieve. The physician in Carruthers' execution,

The story about the euthanasia (MAiD) death of Brigitte Stegemann (83) who lived near Belleville Ontario presented a similar concern. The Daily Mail reported:

Once back inside the home, the nurse started the IV, Kranendonk alleges. According to Kranendonk, the doctor hadn't even arrived, and her grandmother was not asked if she gave consent for the procedure to begin.

The nurse struggled to insert the IV into Stegemann's right arm, and ended up piercing her repeatedly with the needle before attempting her left arm.

Kranendonk remembers in graphic detail the copious amount of blood, which made the whole procedure feel strangely unprofessional.

'She's asking us to hand her things, to flush out the needle. So we're now a part of this. She's asking us to grab things for her, and to hold things for her.

'This nurse is not wearing gloves. There's blood all over her hands, there's blood all over the place,' she says, horrified by the memory.

The letter to Tennessee Governor Lee also refered to the Post Traumatic stress that people have experienced after participating in a lethal injection death. The letter stated:

As medical professionals, we are also acutely aware of the risk of lasting trauma to all participants in the execution process. Many former correctional professionals have spoken out about the emotional toll of proximity to and participation in executions, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality. This risk is greatly exacerbated when executions go visibly awry, as in Mr. Carruthers’s case.

Whether or support or oppose capital punishment, the issues associated with lethal injection executions are the same issues that are associated with lethal injection euthanasia (MAiD).

The New York Times published a news article on June 11, 2026 by Rick Rojas and Abbie Van Sickle reporting that the Supreme Court appears to consider capital punishment by Nitrogen gas to be inhumane:

The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned and included no reasoning, which is typical in such emergency rulings. Dissent came from three of the court’s conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court decision blocked the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee (49) who will remain on death row in Alabama.

On September 24, 2024, euthanasia activist, Dr Philip Nitschke, assisted the suicide of an American woman (64) who died by nitrogen gas asphyxiation in the Sarco pod.

If capital punishment by nitrogen gas is inhumane then assisting a suicide by nitrogen gas is also inhumane.

The difference between capital punishment and euthanasia (MAiD) is that capital punishment does not require a person to request to be killed whereas euthanasia, also known as medical homicide, usually requires a person to request to be killed.

The method of killing for lethal injection executions, is the same method of killing for euthanasia.

Assisted suicide, suicide - There is no mushy middle.

By Gordon Friesen
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

Those of us who are committed to the prevention of medical homicide have frequently felt betrayed by the unfortunate adoption of pro-death policies, by those very organizations whose natural mandate is to oppose such practice without reservation.

Our latest example involves the American Association of Suicidology, which has apparently reposted the following policy statement on its website: 

“the practice of physician aid in dying ... is distinct from the behavior that has been traditionally and ordinarily described as “suicide”.[1]

According to this incongruous theory: people blowing their brains out should be seen as an evil to be prevented; but achieving the same result by consulting a doctor, should not! Regardless of any possible subtleties, the blunt effect of such a doctrine would greatly limit the scope of suicide prevention, and potentially, render that effort irrelevant altogether.

In their own defense the authors of AAS policy embrace (or feign to embrace) political neutrality: 

"...The document does not speak for or against legalization of this practice..."

However, there can be no neutrality in such a case. For to cease opposition to medical homicide is to implicitly support its practice.

Indeed, Such pretended neutrality is strongly reminiscent of the false language offered by the Canadian Medical Association, in 2014, and the British Medical Association, in 2021. In these cases, also, the pretense of political neutrality was a complete refusal of fundamental duty.[2] [3] Both of these announcements significantly took the wind out of medical homicide resistance, and greased the pole for future acceptance.

To explain their own extraordinary self-destructive position, the authors of AAS policy (again like those of the CMA and BMA) claim pragmatic political necessity: 

“The final document accepted by the AAS Board is the product of an effort to try to resolve the tension, evident within the AAS over a period of many years, between commitment to suicide prevention and the recognition that medical aid in dying is now legal in multiple jurisdictions.” [4]

And yet why should legality dictate acquiescence? Mere legality does not make actions right; and that fact is even more certain in the realm of medical ethics. 

Personally, I do not credit this alleged motivation of pragmatic expedience. On the contrary, I believe that a more experienced reading reveals a carefully scripted process, apparently dominated by elements whose ideas are closely aligned with the death lobby itself; and where the reasons given to support their final position might well have been copy/pasted from generic death lobby websites.

And yet (however that may be) our most important concern should not be with those few States where medical homicide is legal. That concern should be with the effects of medical-homicide-enabling doctrine upon the majority of AAS members, in jurisdictions where that practice is still prohibited by law. For as Wesley J. Smith has recently described in detail: the legalization of medical homicide represents an absolute disaster-in-waiting for any effort at suicide prevention.[5]

In short: it is of no benefit, for anyone in such a State or Country, to belong to an Association whose ideology is aimed at undermining the very ground upon which they themselves are standing; an Association, in effect, which is preparing them for extinction.

On the contrary! What we require now is the formation of representative groups dedicated to the protection of basic principles; groups prepared to dispute every inch of ground; groups committed to providing a living model of conceptual integrity, even (and especially) in places where less positive visions have temporarily gained ascendance.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is proud to take an unambiguous stand on medical homicide (as do also: the World Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and many others).

Moreover, recent victories in Slovenia, Alberta and the UK, show that a proactive, morally repugnant submission, is not justifiable on grounds of pragmatic expedience. This fight has not been lost! We have barely yet begun! And the progress of our adversaries is visibly grinding to a halt. 


[1] American Association of Suicidology, Statement Clarifying the Distinction Between “Suicide” and “Physician Aid in Dying”, first posted October 2017, withdrawn 2023, reposted 2025 (Article Link).

[2] Somerville, Margaret, There’s no “mushy middle” on euthanasia, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 3, 2014 (Article Link).

[3] Macdonald, Gordon M.D., BMA goes Neutral on Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, September 21, 2021 (Article Link).

[4] Battin, Margaret P. Phd, Development of the AAS Statement on “Suicide” and “Physician Aid in Dying”, The American Association of Suicidology, June 2019 (Article Link).

[5] Smith, Wesley J., World Suicide Prevention Day Hypocrisy, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, September 10, 2026 (Article Link).

“Euthanasia And Arbitrary Institutionalization Are Both Immoral”

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader
Meghan is a disability activists and a member of the EPC-USA board.

As I’ve said, I think that one of the most effective ways to prevent euthanasia is for euthanasia opponents to be thinking about what kind of world we want people with disabilities to live in, and do what we can to link euthanasia prevention to creating a better world. 

Hence, I think it’s valuable for euthanasia opponents to be aware of the trend towards broad re-institutionalization that is happening in the United States right now, especially since we know that coerced institutionalization contributes to euthanasia.

Institutions often smell like pee. The odor of urine hangs in the air. If you live in an institution you might get the chance to do something fun once in a while, like make a craft or watch a TV show, but your options for recreation are limited. Your loved ones and friends might come visit you at designated hours. You eat whatever food the institution serves. Often if you want to go to the bathroom, an orderly will have to unlock the door for you. Maybe the person living in the room next to you screams constantly. Maybe your roommate died from a bedsore that became infected because there weren’t enough staff to take care of his needs. 

In many ways living in an institution is like living in prison, except the residents generally aren’t criminals.

So, as a euthanasia prevention advocate, I’m disturbed that apparently, that’s the world that Texas, Florida, Alaska, and the Department of Justice want for some disabled people.

As I’ve noted, a 1999 SCOTUS precedent called Olmstead LC. generally requires states to provide community supports to disabled people who would be unnecessarily institutionalized without them. Ie, SCOTUS held that there may be some people who do need institutionalization in a humane setting, like if they are homicidal, have no ability to care for themselves whatsoever or prefer to live in an institution. But within reason, states can't put disabled people in institutions because states prefer that to community support. This determination created Olmstead’s “community integration mandate,” which helps protect disabled people from living in institutions just because that’s where the supports are.

But now, Texas, Florida, Alaska and the DOJ are fighting to let states design their home and community support systems in a way that would make many disabled people unable to receive the support they need without living in an institution.

This would be the case even when the disabled people aren’t a threat to themselves or others.

Florida, Texas and Alaska are the three states still clinging to the aforementioned Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit. The lawsuit threatens euthanasia-preventing healthcare protections for disabled people, but especially takes aim at simple, straightforward 2024 guidance about how to implement Olmstead’s mandate that disabled people who aren’t a threat to themselves or others be able to receive services in their communities.

These guidelines were also outlined by DOJ guidance in 2011 and 2020 and aren’t complicated: they define what community integration means and what states must do to achieve it. The regulations define what it means to be at risk of unnecessary institutionalization, and clarify that disabled people need not wait until they are unnecessarily institutionalized to invoke their right to community support. 

But the remaining Texas vs. Kennedy plaintiff states complain that implementing the updated community integration guidance will “add new regulatory burdens and imposes substantial costs on the state.”

(You know, like how the Canadian government sees disability services as a burden, so it’s incentivizing its disabled citizens to die by (MAiD) euthanasia?)

The Department of Justice has been conferring regularly with these states, and despite community integration being enforced by every administration since the Clinton administration, including the President’s first administration, the DOJ is apparently poised to give these states what they want and more.

Repealing the 2024 guidelines would be destructive enough, but the DOJ has now said that longstanding legal interpretations of Olmstead's community integration mandate are null and void: there is no community integration mandate; states don’t have to serve disabled people in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

For instance, having declined to enforce Olmstead, the Department of Justice has asked the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to vacate its ruling that Florida illegally withheld the community services necessary for medically fragile children to live at home with their families. A recent court judgment found that Texas violated the law by unnecessarily placing intellectually disabled adults in nursing homes, and the DOJ would like that ruling to be reversed. Alaska, the third state still pursuing the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit, was found by the previous administration’s DOJ to have unnecessarily withheld community services from emotionally disabled children. The DOJ will likely seek to nullify that judgment as well.

Hence, the DOJ is failing to protect the same vulnerable people whose flourishing mis being undermined by the euthanasia movement, because that’s what the states of Texas, Florida and Alaska want the DOJ to do.

Incentivizing disabled people to die by assisted suicide violates society’s moral duties to people with disabilities. The current government’s approach to institutionalization also violates those principles. Coercing disabled people into institutions to get your political allies out of a legal pickle is an amoral thing to do.

A lot of people in the current government make vocal appeals to family and moral values. Is forcing intellectually disabled adults to live in understaffed nursing homes that smell like pee, and depriving disabled children of the opportunity to grow up with their families, consistent with those values?

I’m not writing about this issue to shame or praise people for how they vote; my commentary on how other disability issues are related to euthanasia is meant to be nonpartisan. I’ve met people from accross the political spectrum who care about disabled persons.

But recent government choices take steps toward creating a more limited and painful world for people with disabilities. Regardless of anyone’s intentions, making it easier for disabled people to be unnecessarily institutionalized contributes to a culture in which disabled people are so marginalized that offering assisted suicide seems normal and appealing.

It’s unjust to medicalize disabled people’s suicides in order to ease burdens on the medical system.

It’s also immoral for disabled people to shoulder the burden of living in institutions to relieve “regulatory burdens” on the state.

Author Note 1: I did an interview with moral theologian Charlie Camosy about how coerced institutionalization and assisted suicide are connected to one another. It can be read here.

Author Note: Here are the details about the updated Community Integration Mandate that is under threat. 

Australia's Northern Territory legalizes assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Australia's Northern Territory

I have sad news.

Australia's Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to legalize assisted suicide between 1996 - 97, and once again has legalized assisted suicide.

Joseph Hathaway-Wilson reported for ABC News Australia on August 27 that:

The Northern Territory Parliament has passed a bill legalising voluntary assisted dying (VAD) in the NT, with significant restrictions on accessing, and initiating conversations about, the practice.

The NT is now both the first and last Australian jurisdiction to legislate for VAD after a watershed 1995 law was overturned by the Commonwealth two years later.

Hathaway-Wilson reported that no one will be allowed to bring up the issue of assisted suicide and a person will need a 12 month terminal prognosis to be approved.

The Northern Territory passed the first assisted suicide law on May 25, 1995. Australia's Federal government passed An Act Concerning Euthanasia on March 24, 1997 which overturned the Northern Territories euthanasia law.

Dr Philip Nitschke, who became an international euthanasia activist, began by lobbying to legalize assisted suicide in the Northern Territory under the banner of Doctors for change. Nitschke started his killing career in the Northern Territory and was involved with 4 assisted deaths, while it was legal. When the Northern Territory law was overturned in 1997 Nitschke continued to promote assisted suicide and founded the group Exit International, that still exists today.

Legalization of Euthanasia in France: conscientious objection and the impartiality of judges

By Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM and a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition board member.

Previous article: France legalized euthanasia. What's next (Link).

Odile Marcotte

After the National Assembly of France adopted the law on “aid in dying,” (Article Link) five people or groups asked the Constitutional Council (the French equivalent of the Supreme Court of Canada) to state whether this law was constitutional.

In its decision published on August 14, 2026, the Constitutional Council did not reject the law or any part of it but asked for three changes (Link to the article in the Le Point magazine) (Link to the decision). 

The first concerned adults under guardianship, that is, those subject to a guardianship arrangement, who, under the initial version of the law, could request and obtain assisted dying without the guardian being consulted. The Council holds that the guardian must be consulted in such cases (see paragraph 121 of the decision). 

It also holds that pharmacists have the right to conscientious objection, that is, the right to refuse to prepare and provide the lethal substances used in the assisted dying procedure (see paragraph 166). 

Finally, the Council holds that institutions themselves (and not just individuals) have the right to refuse to perform assisted suicide or euthanasia if these practices conflict with their mission or purpose (see paragraph 188). An institution’s refusal, however, “can only be invoked if other institutions are able to meet local needs,” which greatly restricts the institutions’ freedom of conscience.

From our point of view this last point is especially interesting, since certain Canadian provinces (notably Quebec) require every hospice to include euthanasia in its “range of care.” The Maison Saint-Raphaël, for example, which is located near several Montreal hospitals, was compelled to do so. The intolerance displayed by the drafters of the first version of the French law, which did not recognize any freedom of conscience for institutions, has been sharply criticized by several authors, who call for genuine pluralism in the field of end-of-life care (Link to an article on conscience rights). 

Quebec and Canada are in great need of this pluralism! Furthermore, before the Constitutional Council issued its ruling, Ms. Nazila Ghanea, a professor at the University of Oxford and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, reminded the French government and the Constitutional Council of their obligation to respect the freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals and institutions providing end-of-life care (Link to article). Of course Ms. Ghanea could make a similar statement regarding the Canadian situation if someone brought to her attention the legislation of the federal and provincial governments of Canada, particularly the burden on Quebec hospices to provide euthanasia.

Another important issue is the impartiality of the judges or “wise men,” as members of the Constitutional Council are called. In fact, some members of the Council had already expressed their support for the legalization of euthanasia in one way or another, and the Council received recusal requests targeting two of its members. These requests were rejected by the Council for reasons that were heavily criticized by some legal experts (Article on impartiality). The issue of the impartiality of judges also arises in Canada.

Training and normalizing (MAiD) medical homicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was speaking to an Ontario palliative care nurse who said that she recently participated in a required (MAiD) euthanasia training session. The training session didn't force her to participate in the act but the session promoted participation in euthanasia and explained how to do it.

Euthanasia (medical homicide) is the killing of a person upon request. It is done by injecting the person with poison drugs that paralyze and put the person into coma and then prevents the lungs from breathing, which causes death.

The nurse said that she was surprised to learn, at the session, that Canadians who are not terminally ill, could be killed by (MAiD) medical homicide.

The nurse stated that she completely opposes euthanasia and would not participate in euthanasia, nonetheless, she was required to attend the "MAiD" training session.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people.

Normalizing killing.

Normalization is a process that reduces the natural opposition to killing. Throughout human history when a society decides that it is OK to kill a certain class of people, that process starts with propaganda and is followed by a normalization process.

Medical homicide training sessions are designed to increase the number of willing killers as well as to normalize the act.

Selling euthanasia.

We have received many calls from supporters who are shocked when a doctor or nurse asks them if they want (MAiD) euthanasia, an act that they would never consider. 

Often the person is asked, many time, if they want to be killed. They are even asked after saying NO. One supporter called and said that her husband was asked 5 times.

Asking patients if they want to be killed by euthanasia is another normalization technique as it creates the impression that euthanasia is the same as any other medical procedure and it is a way of selling euthanasia.

What was sold to the culture as being a free choice, is now being sold to the public as the choice. But to sell killing to the public society avoids the reality, that euthanasia is about killing people. 

It is not compassionate, it is not about freedom, and for many it is not about choice, it is about killing and it is often an abandonment of a person in need.

Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition if you have felt "pressured" or "coerced" to consider euthanasia or if you are a medical professional who has felt pressured to participate in killing.

Your story is important, not only to inform the public, but also to give others permission to also tell their story. Change will only come after

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.