Doctor admits to killing patient with mental illness by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

Dr Ellen Wiebe

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

The article begins:

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

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

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

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

Dr. John Maher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian man tried to have his incompetent wife killed by euthanasia, against her consent.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Roxanne Egan-Elliott reported that Justice Bradford Smith removed a Canadian man’s power to make health-care decisions for his 77-year-old wife with advanced Alzheimer’s after the court learning that the man intended to end her life and then take his own.

The article that was published by the Times Colonist on December 23, 2025 reports that a woman known as E.W. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2017 and her husband has pushed to have her killed by euthanasia, without her consent. The article states:

E.W. was assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying in 2020, but by September 2021, a doctor determined in a second assessment that she was ineligible because her condition had progressed to a point that she no longer had sufficient insight into dementia to consent to MAID.

E.W. also told the doctor at that point that she was not interested in receiving MAID in circumstances related to worsening memory or confusion, the court decision says.

Her husband, T.W., is a “strong advocate” for MAID and has told various people that if he and E.W. are eligible for MAID, they intend to receive it.

He has also told family, friends and Island Health staff that if his wife becomes ineligible, he intends to end her life and take his own, the decision says.

Clearly, her husband was considering murdering his wife and then dying by suicide.

The court heard that E.W. never agreed to her husbands "death plan." Egan-Elliott reported:

“On the contrary, E.W. was understandably upset by it,” and told their daughter that T.W. “was trying to kill her,” the decision says.

Island Health increased the frequency of its wellness checks and clinical assessments of E.W. after receiving a report from the doctor who assessed E.W. for MAID that she had said she was not ready to die, and that if her husband learned she was ineligible for MAID, he planned to carry out the death plan, which he referred to as “dignicide.”

The article reports that in January 2022 that Island Health obtained emergency powers to remove E.W. from the couple's home and to place her in a long-term care facility for protection.

Egan-Elliott reported that the husband continued to inappropriately treat his wife. He would call the care facility every day, against her wishes, at 6:30 am to wake her up, she was often dressed in tattered clothing and shoes, that TW provided, including worn-out men's work boots, that he insisted that she wear, and more.

Justice Bradford Smith decision stated:

“Having regard to what is in E.W.’s best interest and her lack of cognitive capacity, I find that the only currently tenable solution that will protect E.W. from risk of death or grievous harm is to remove T.W.’s authority as her personal representative,”

Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia’s Peter A. Allard School of Law, told Lisa Steacy for CTV news on December 22 that:

“The death plan is contrary to our murder laws. And I think it’s really important not to have us talk about the murder of elderly people as some slightly improper form of MAID. That’s not what it is. It’s murder. Just because she has a disability does not transform this into something else. This case demonstrates how our MAID regime has normalized death as a response to disability for the elderly."

Steacy also reported Grant as stating:

Grant also said she finds it troubling the decision does not indicate that any moves were made by any authorities to limit or prevent T.W.’s contact with his wife in light of his seemingly unabashed professions of his intent to kill her, or that there was any discussion about how or whether his actions would warrant a criminal investigation or charge.

The relationship between T.W. and E.W. is also one with all the hallmarks of coercive control—a form of intimate partner violence that Canada is taking steps toward criminalizing, Grant pointed out.

In that context, Grant said the repeated references to T.W. advocating for MAID for his wife, his apparent attempts to find a way consent to it on her behalf, and his plan to kill her if MAID was not available are particularly troubling.

Grant's concerns are correct. E.W.'s life was directly threatened by her husband. E.W. has Alzheimer's and needs support, but her husband is not only controlling her but doing so in an abusive manner.

E.W. not only needed her husband removed as her medical decision maker but he should be barred from seeing her as a protection for her. The husband is abusive and is willing to kill her.

This article might be seen as proving that the law protected E.W. from her husband but considering that Québec has approved euthanasia by advanced request and the federal government is considering expanding euthanasia to advanced request, the situation may have been different if advanced requests were permitted.

I have published several articles about domestic murder/suicide over the years (Articles Link).

Belgian Bioethics Committee supports eugenic euthanasia for advanced dementia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

The Belga News Agency reported today that The Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics released an advisory report that supports euthanasia for people with advanced dementia.

Approval for euthanasia, which is killing a person by lethal poison, has moved from the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to people with mental illness, to children and newborns and now to the incompetent.

Clearly The Belgian Advisory Committee have bought into a eugenic ideology based on the belief that some human lives are not worth living, and can be killed.

The Belga News Agency reported that:

At present, someone with advanced dementia cannot legally obtain euthanasia in Belgium. The current law requires that a person be mentally competent when requesting euthanasia, or that a prior living will or advance directive has been drawn up that applies when the patient is in a state of irreversible loss of consciousness – a coma.

This means that people with dementia can currently only request euthanasia if they are still sufficiently mentally competent. In 2024, 56 people with dementia in our country received euthanasia.

The Belga News Agency reported that Patrick Cras, vice-chairman of the Committee stated:

“It is not a black-and-white assessment, but doctors do feel that procedures for people with dementia have been carried out ‘too early’ because it will no longer be legally possible to do so later,”

The Committee therefore recommends extending the euthanasia law to include people who “are conscious, but whose mental competence and ability to express their wishes have been irreversibly impaired by illness or accident.”

In 2024 there were almost 4000 euthanasia deaths, which was almost a 64% increase since 2020. Belgium is known for having a high rate of unreported euthanasia deaths. Several years ago Dr Marc Cosyns stated that he does not report euthanasia deaths and studies show that Cosyns isn't alone in not reporting his deaths.

Euthanasia was sold to the public as being for mentally competent, terminally ill adults who were freely capable of consenting.

When Belgium expanded their euthanasia law, in February 2014, to include children, it was clear that eugenics was driving the force. Child euthanasia undermines the "safeguard" that a person is fully competent and capable of consenting.

By extending euthanasia to people with advanced dementia, the concept of being competent and consenting is completely ignored. These decisions are based on a decision that some human lives are not worth living.

The new eugenics is similar to the old eugenics, except that the new eugenics cloaks itself in the language of autonomy and choice, even when autonomy and choice are impossible.