EPC intervention in euthanasia for mental illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs your financial support (Read).

The legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), Hugh Scher, was in a Toronto court on July 21 / 22, 2026 representing EPC in the case concerning Claire Brosseau and Dying with Dignity. 

The Brosseau case is asking the court to legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

Scher reported that:

Leave to intervene was granted to EPC by order of the court. We prepared a 10 page written legal argument, reviewed the file documents and prepared for oral arguments for July 21 / 22.

The judge hearing the motion was Justice Carissima Mathen. Curiously, she used to be head of litigation for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Her background is in constitutional litigation particularly with respect to women's rights.

... At the hearing, she seemed much more interested in taking charge of the application than limiting the scope of her review to the motion for a stay which was the matter properly before her.

Hugh Scher

Scher summarized the EPC position before the court:

In our oral submissions, we focussed on the core requirement of irremediability which was a core principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision as a criteria to access an assisted death. ...We relied on the significant evidence that suggests that it is impossible to determine if a person with a mental illness only is irremediable.

It is also hard to determine prognosis given the significant changes that occur with mental illness that are often quite fluid. EPC urged the court against finding on the minimal record before it that a stay is appropriate.

We also suggested that the intention of this application was to avoid the change in direction of Parliament, effectively pitting the court against Parliament. ...Parliament has recently, through its parliamentary committee (AMAD) on euthanasia report indicated a desire to be cautious and to defer any further action on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Scher completed his report by stating:

It remains to be determined what the court will do, particularly given the background of the judge and her possible desire to establish some kind of precendent. That said, the law is currently against granting a stay to grant Brosseau death based on mental illness alone.

EPC has intervened in this case in an attempt to prevent the court from expanding euthanasia by legislating from the bench to allow euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Previous articles about the Brosseau case:

• (EPC) filed to intervene in Euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read). 
• Canadian actress seeking euthanasia for mental illness (Read)

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.

The death lobby supports medical homicide (euthanasia) for people with mental illnesses.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The death lobby sells the concept of giving doctors the right to kill their patients (euthanasia or assisted suicide) by assuring legislators that the killing will be limited to rare circumstances. 

In Canada, the death lobby argued that medical homicide would be limited to terminally ill people who are fully competent, freely choosing and suffering. The original Canadian euthanasia law claimed to have "tight" safeguards that including a restriction based on having a "terminal" condition.

The reality was that the Canadian law lacked effective definition. Therefore, from the beginning it was designed to quickly expand from killing the few to killing the many.

The strategy of selling killing based on it being limited to rare circumstances is used in every jurisdiction when debating the legalization of poisoning.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) argues that once legal, the assisted killing law inevitably expands because it is discriminatory to allow doctors to kill one group of people while restricting doctors from killing another group of people with similar conditions. EPC has been vilified for our honesty.

Konia Trouton

The Globe and Mail published an opinion article on June 13 by Dr Konia Trouton titled: Why are the rules different for MAiD depending on what you have? Trouton is not only a euthanasia doctor but she is also a co-founder and past president of CAMAP (Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Practitioners) and she helped develop the curriculum for training doctors to poison (kill) their patients.

Trouton's article justifies euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill, but living with mental health conditions, something that is never promoted when a jurisdiction is debating the legalization of medical homicide. 

Trouton argues that John Scully who is living with chronic mental illness, should have equal access to medical homicide.

According to Trouton, who is a euthanasia lobby leader, John Scully qualifies to be killed because he can no longer self-manage his life and he needs a personal support worker to help him live his life.

A definition, such as this, represents a very wide group of people. These people deserve to receive societal support (caring) not medical homicide.

Trouton's comments are very eugenic. She is willing to kill Scully because he has a diminishing quality of life. Yet almost every elderly person or person's with disabilities has a diminishing quality of life.

Trouton's medical homicide approval criteria opens the door to medical homicide to the many not the few.

When debating the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the death lobby sells the concept of legalization as being for the hard cases, the few who are suffering and nearing death. Once legal, the death lobby moves to expand the law. Trouton is arguing that euthanasia should be approved for people with a mental illness alone.

I oppose killing people, but the next time a jurisdiction debates the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the opposition needs to refer to Trouton's article which proves that the death lobby believes that medical homicide should apply to not only terminal conditions, but also chronic conditions and mental health conditions.  

The death lobby wants medical homicide for the many but will sell it by claiming that it will be for the few.

Further information on this topic:

• It is impossible to determine if a psychiatric condition is irremediable (Read).
• Euthanasia for mental illness. Court cases and Committee hearings (Read).
• Canadian psychiatrists: No to euthanasia for mental illness (Read).
• A psychiatrist told the parliamentary committee that depression qualifies for MAiD (Read). 
• Psychiatric euthanasia (youth) and suicide prevention in the Netherlands (Read). 
• Euthanasia: No evidence base for futility and irremediability in psychiatric disorders (Read). 
• Euthanasia activist says that Canada must allow euthanasia for mental illness (Read). 
• Medical homicide as a psychiatric treatment (Read). 
• Grieving parents demand changes after son (26) was euthanized in Canada (Read).

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition filed to intervene in Euthanasia for Mental Illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has filed in court, an application to intervene in the Brosseau case launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group. The Brosseau case is asking an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by approving medical homicide for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.

Court interventions are very expensive. We need your support.

Last week I wrote that EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted a court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that included interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized medical homicide in Canada. Today, EPC filed a formal application to intervene in the Brosseau case.

Due to the nature of the legal proceedings, I will not, at this time, share our legal documents, but our intervention provide important information for the court. For instance, we stated that:

EPC frequently receives stories about people with mental illness only who at one time sought access to suicide and/or to MAiD, but who later expressed gratitude about their inability to end their own lives either by suicide or by MAiD and about how their continuing lives have been fulfilling despite past and ongoing difficulties. This is particularly so for those who were able to access mental health resources and supports that addressed their mental health disabilities and that increased their social integration and inclusion. These people acknowledge that if they had access to MAiD for mental illness only they would have acted on it during times of profound depression, hopelessness and desperation.

In our application, EPC provided significant information about how Canada's law is currently operating. EPC is not only concerned with medical homicide being extended to people who's sole criteria is a mental illness, but we also want Canada's law to be fully reviewed.

Whether or not our intervention application is accepted, court interventions are important and very expensive. 

 

We need your financial support. 

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.

The deeper meaning of an absurd demand

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

On May 5, 2026, Helen Long, CEO of the oddly named Canadian death-lobby flagship ‘Dying with Dignity’, expressed her desire that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (which is presently reconsidering the 2027 implementation of medical homicide for patients with psychiatric conditions alone) might usefully hear testimony from those persons who are most immediately impacted. In making this observation, she quoted Claire Brosseau, who used the iconic disabled-rights slogan, "Nothing about us without us", which vigorously affirms the principle that no decisions, affecting disabled persons, should be taken without disabled input.

Article: Should EPC apologize to Helen Long from Dying With Dignity? (Read).

On May 7, Ms. Long's wish was eloquently granted when the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published a commentary by Amy Hasbrouck, past President of the Coalition, Founding Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, and a pillar of Canadian Disability activism for many years. This I believe, is precisely the sort of personal, informed, and directly affected testimony that Ms Long's call for disabled voices might most beneficially have elicited.

Unfortunately for the thesis of Ms. Long, however, Ms Habrouck's conclusion is unambiguously (and unapologetically) opposed to any medical homicide at all, much less that for persons afflicted with mental illness. Indeed, Amy made her argument by generously referencing both collective and personal experience, to examine the ways in which this now scheduled extension of medical homicide would negatively impact persons such as herself. In doing so, she rather colorfully condemned Ms. Long's use of the phrase "Nothing about us without us", observing that it is (in her opinion) grossly inappropriate to parrot words so clearly associated with those individuals, and organizations, which are most vehemently opposed to the objectives of death-lobby operatives such as Ms. Long.

As it turns out, Ms. Long has not seen proper to respond --herself-- to the comments of Amy Hasbrouck, and that, I believe, most wisely (although I would dearly love see her try). However, persons closely associated with Ms. Long have indeed flown to her defense, actually demanding apologies from both Amy Hasbrouck and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

It is perhaps best to ignore the ridiculous basis of such a request, but I do believe it is useful to examine the assumptions of entitlement which seem to have made it possible, since those same entitled assumptions are more widely (and most perniciously) weaponized throughout the underlying debate regarding medical homicide.

Briefly stated: it is widely assumed that the suffering of those people seeking recourse to medical homicide cannot be questioned. And from that first assumption spring several others. First, we tend to accept that such people may make any extreme statements that they like (including the most egregious attacks on other individuals); and second, that any criticism (whatsoever) of such individuals, of their behavior, or of their statements, is simply unacceptable.

However, that which might provide a reasonable standard in private conversation cannot be transported to the realm of discourse surrounding public policy. Unfortunately, in the present case, to accept that individuals seeking medical homicide might benefit from a special "sufferers" privilege --which places their beliefs beyond the reach of any rational criticism-- is also to concede the main point in contention (that acceptance of medical homicide is indeed justified as public policy). And that, in all conscience, we cannot do. For we must also remember the people whose defense we are espousing in opposing such a policy (which paradoxically includes Claire Brosseau, who we hope will achieve recovery from her condition).

It thus becomes necessary for us to confront the uncomfortable fact that what may be spontaneous, in individual communication, becomes strategic at the political level; that without reference to any individual, the exploitation of compassionate sentiment becomes a political tool, or as Polonius so shrewdly remarks in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't".

Without the slightest nuance, when those associated with the death-lobby tell us that we "do not understand", they are crassly attempting to impose upon the best sentiments of good people who do not, indeed, have such experience. But in so doing, they are also ignoring --and attempting to suppress-- the experience and desires of the lion's share of those people who actually do.

When we read Claire Brosseau's passionate diatribe in support of Helen Long (while savagely attacking Amy Hasbrouck, M.P. Andrew Lawton, and by extension so many others) we must remember that Ms. Brosseau's "suffering" cannot reasonably trump that of Ms. Hasbrouck.

More generally, it is simply not true that those who would seek medical homicide are suffering any more than their surviving counterparts. For there is, in fact, no correlation in this regard. Quite to the contrary: the number of people persisting in their struggle to survive (in objectively similar medical circumstances) is vastly greater than those who seek assisted death. For there is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide might be represented as normal.

When we are told, therefore, that we do not “understand” the suffering of that small minority who would allegedly benefit from assisted death, we must reply that this is false. For we (or at least a great many of us) do indeed understand.

However, unlike the death-lobby we also understand the suffering of the overwhelming majority, whose access to real medical assistance in their own wilful quest to survive, will be significantly degraded by the institutional acceptance of that practice.

Given the need to protect the vital interests of this majority, it is my firm opinion that the suicidal (and their ideological supporters) should be fully satisfied with the simple decriminalization of suicide. It is enough, I believe (and indeed more than enough) that society might view their choice in a morally neutral fashion. It is not desirable that the conceptual ramifications of that choice should be permitted --through official validation-- to pollute the social and medical landscape for the non-suicidal majority.

And indeed, this principle is even more evident when we remember that the dead are truly gone, and that our validation of them has no meaning to themselves.

But those who are struggling --with the consequences of socially validated suicidal acts-- remain among us now, and must continue to live in the world which this ill-advised cult of suicidal adulation has poisoned.

Gordon Friesen,

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) seeks intervention standing in euthanasia for mental illness case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking to intervene in the "emergency relief" court case that was launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group, to have an Ontario court approve death by medical homicide for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.

The May 4, 2026 Dying with Dignity press release stated that:

Ms. Brosseau, Dr. Patricia Smith, and Dying With Dignity Canada, filed a court challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the exclusion of individuals living with grievous and irremediable mental illness from MAID eligibility is discriminatory. It violates the rights to equality and liberty and security of the person protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted the court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that began in 2004 and includes interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized medical homicide in Canada. Scher stated:

EPC will tailor its intervention, if granted, so as to not duplicate submissions made by other parties to the litigation and will focus on the scope of its intervention on the public policy implications including people with mental health disabilities on the application of an exemption to the MAiD provisions of the Criminal Code that would allow for the application of MAiD to a person with a mental illness only.

When Canada passed Bill C-7 in March 2021, that expansion of the medical homicide law included extending killing to people with only a mental illness. At that time parliament declared a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone to provide time for parliament to establish guidelines. Parliament later extended the moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.

Recently parliament reconvened the AMAD committee (Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying) to examine whether or not Canada was "ready" to permit medical homicide for mental illness alone. The committee will submit a report later this year.

At the same time, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to prevent euthanasia for mental illness by excluding mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218 will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

Dying With Dignity, Ms. Brosseau, and Dr. Patricia Smith launched the current emergency relief court case in an attempt to get an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by giving Ms. Brosseau an exemption to be killed, even though parliament has a moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

We will not know immediately whether or not our intervention application is accepted but we will need your financial support. 

Please donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Should the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition apologize to Helen Long from Dying with Dignity?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 5, I had the opportunity to present to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD). The AMAD committee is examining whether Canada was "ready" to begin euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone, which is currently scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

My presentation time was shared with Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group and Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia after experiencing a head injury from a car accident.

My presentation focused on Canada needing to conduct a complete review of it's euthanasia law which was required in the original legislation but has never been done. All of the reviews of Canada's euthanasia law were limited to examining further expansions of the law.

On May 4, the day before the AMAD committee hearing, Dying With Dignity filed an emergency relief in an Ontario court, urging the court to legislate from the bench and order the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. The Dying with Dignity press release, explains that Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith filed the case.

During the question and answer session at the AMAD committee Helen Long claimed to represent the people who were demanding euthanasia for the sole underlying condition of mental illness. She then read a letter from Claire Brosseau whereby Brosseau complains that the AMAD committee did not bring witnesses from people who are seeking euthanasia, based on mental illness alone.

In concluding the Brosseau's letter, Long read: 

“We so often hear the expression ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ and yet they have refused to hear from any people who are harmed from the exclusion…”

Amy Hasbrouck

Amy Hasbrouck, the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition responded to the use of the axiom "Nothing about us without us" with an article that essentially tells the euthanasia lobby to: Get our words out of your mouth.

Hasbrouck challenges Long and the euthanasia lobby based on the fact that people with disabilities experience the ultimate discrimination through euthanasia laws, that being death. Hasbrouck explains the long-standing opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide by the disability community and completes her article by stating:

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

Since then the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck have been lobbied by euthanasia lobbyists, Claire Brosseau and her family to apologize to Helen Long.

John Brosseau sent the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck this message:

I find myself compelled to respond to the words you published about Helen Long. 

Helen Long has sustained my daughter through circumstances of profound and unrelenting difficulty. She has offered her support with a constancy and grace that few possess. There is no ambiguity about her character or her commitment to Claire. You were cognizant of the fact that Helen spoke on my daughter’s behalf. You possessed this knowledge. You chose to publish your critique nonetheless, directing it at a woman whose sole purpose has been to advocate for my daughter’s dignity and her right to self-determination.

Claire Brosseau sent us a message, urging us to apologize to Helen Long.

So what did Amy Hasbrouck write that requires an apology? 

Hasbrouck, who practised law in Massachusetts, stated that she is a survivor of childhood trauma, she has lived with mental illness and she has been a long-time disability rights activist. Among other things, Hasbrouck wrote:

If she (Helen Long) knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

Hasbrouck was angry about the use of the disability axiom, "Nothing about us without us" to promote euthanasia, especially since euthanasia was legalized in Canada without considering the concerns of the disability community. Considering her experience and Canada's reality I consider Hasbrouck's anger to be in it's proper place.

As for Brosseau, she is being used by the euthanasia lobby for the purpose of expanding euthanasia to people with mental illness. If she wants to be used by the euthanasia lobby, then that's her decision, but if she is granted death by the court, based on mental illness as the sole criteria, many more people will also be killed based on that precedent. Killing results in many more people being killed.

I oppose killing people and I support the best possible care being provided. But death is never a solution even when it becomes the final solution.

But if I am wrong and if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition should apologize to Helen Long for publishing Amy's article, then let the readers tell us. Otherwise I will continue to support Amy Hasbrouck and the disability community.

Nothing about us, without us"

This article was published by Amy Hasbrouck on her substack on May 7, 2026.

Amy Hasbrouck

By Amy Hasbrouck

Get our words out of your mouth.

Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement in advocating to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people whose requests arise only from a mental illness. Allegedly Ms. Long, who does not identify as disabled, criticized the parliamentary committee for not seeking input from people with mental illness who want government help to ensure fulfillment of their suicidal wishes. Specifically she said the committee had not respected the principle of “Nothing about us, without us.”

(Ms. Long was reading a text by Claire Brosseau, who is a woman who is seeking euthanasia based on mental illness alone).

Say what?

Assuming Ms. Long doesn’t have the lived experience of disability, one would think that, as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence, she might be able to make the solidarity connection in a more genuine way than by simply claiming it. I get it that the issues raised by euthanasia of people with psychiatric disabilities may be too specialized for folks who are not disabled survivors of childhood trauma and the mental illness that often flows from it. It probably doesn’t occur to Ms. Long that allowing MAiD for people with mental illness undermines the public policy of Suicide prevention, by allowing (often ableist) mental health professionals to judge not just the remediability of a mental illness, but also the person’s quality of life and human worth. And maybe it doesn’t occur to Dying with Dignity that inappropriate or inadequate mental health care means that people with psychiatric disabilities are requesting MAiD because they haven’t gotten the help they need, and are subject to stresses like homelessness, addiction (from attempts at self-medication), and stigmatization.

If Ms. Long really cared about disabled people, she would know that, while some disabled individuals support assisted dying, disability organizations that advocate for equality, acceptance and accessibility oppose medical killing. ADAPT and Not Dead Yet have opposed medical killing since the mid 1980s. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities took its position against legalized medical killing in 1996, at the height of public support for Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy in 1993. Surely Ms. Long knows that disability advocates recognize and object to the belief that disabled people are (supposed to be) better off dead, and the growing popularity of assisted dying … as promoted by Dying with Dignity. She would also know that disability advocates are aware that the option to “choose” state-provided euthanasia is fast becoming a duty to die.

If she knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

So please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.

Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

Euthanasia for mental illness. Court cases and Committee hearings.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Globe and Mail May 6, 2026 editorial is titled: An alarm bell is ringing on medically assisted death for mental illness and features the letter from psychiatrists representing 13 Canadian medical schools. The editorial states:

Alarm bells don't get much louder than the written brief from the heads of psychiatry at 13 Canadian medical schools urging Ottawa to stop the expansion of medically assisted death to those whose only condition is mental illness.

The editorial quotes from the psychiatrists letter:

"As a society, we must provide hope and support to individuals during periods of despair and psychological suffering. In our clinical and academic experience, people can and do recover from prolonged suffering related to mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use when provided with appropriate, evidence based treatments and supports," they wrote, adding they "strongly believe" that expanding MAiD would result in preventable deaths and would undermine suicide prevention efforts.

The Globe and Mail also stated in an article published on May 5, 2026 that the federal government is prepared to prevent the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone, if the committee that is examining the question makes that recommendation.

The Globe and Mail was originally a promoter of euthanasia but over the past few years they have stated that Canada's euthanasia law has gone too far.

At the same time Dying With Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group, filed an emergency relief on May 4, 2026 in an Ontario court to force the court to agree to the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. Brosseau is a former actress.

According to the Dying with Dignity press release, Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith have filed the case.

Dying With Dignity would not be spending the massive amount of money on a court challenge if they believed that the federal government will extend euthanasia to mental illness alone in March 2027.

I had the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee on euthanasia on May 5, 2026. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the committee will recommend scrapping euthanasia for mental illness and then agree to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.

My experience speaking to the Parliamentary Committee on Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was approved to speak to Canada's Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026. Previous sessions of the Joint Committee on euthanasia, which also dealt with expansions of euthanasia, denied me the opportunity to present to the committee.

I was given 5 minutes to present to the committee (link to my speech).

Based on my experience watching the previous hearings that examined euthanasia for mental illness, euthanasia for children and euthanasia by advanced request, I felt that the response from the Members of Parliament had changed. The majority of the joint committee continued to support euthanasia but they had become more cautious and were having second thoughts about expanding the law to include killing people who have a mental illness as their sole condition.

Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia in 2022, also presented at the same hearing. Alicia provided an excellent testimony about why it was wrong to kill her mother, but also how the family was prevented, by the authorities, from receiving the "medical" reports that approved her mother's euthanasia death.

Alicia was questioned by two Senators who attempted to undermine her testimony. It is obvious that pro-euthanasia committee members are uncomfortable with the truth related to Donna Duncan's death and wanted to undermine her testimony rather than question the law that enabled a doctor to kill her mother.

My testimony focused on the need to fully review Canada's euthanasia law. I stated that:

...Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

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

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

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

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

I was asked several questions.

Senator Yonah Martin acknowledged that there has never been a review of Canada's euthanasia law. Previous committee's examined further expansions of the law, but not whether the law is being abused, even if the abuse is based on the vague language of the law.

One Member of Parliament asked me about people who are dying from cancer.  I will paraphrase my response.

I said that this committee is examining euthanasia for mental illness which I believe is a different issue.

Under the law, a person with a physical condition that is not terminal or irremediable does not qualify for euthanasia. If the law is extended to persons with mental illness, psychiatrists have testified that it is impossible to determine if a person's mental illness is irremediable, but the law would still permit euthanasia.

Most psychiatrists will tell patients with mental illnesses who are requesting to be killed by euthanasia that it is impossible to determine if they have an irremediable condition therefore it is impossible to approve them for euthanasia.

But some psychiatrists will approve requests for euthanasia by stating that the person has an irremediable mental illness. These psychiatrists will become known for approving euthanasia for mental illness, leading to patients, who are doctor shopping, contacting them to be kileed by euthaansia.

This situation is not different than our current situation except that in this case the people seeking death will be living, solely with a mental illnes.

I was also asked about people who wanted to die by euthanasia for mental illness, and are happy to be alive today. I responded by sharing the stories of Kathryn D'hondt and Andrea (Link to stories).

I was sitting beside Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity. There were several Senators and Members of Parliament who clearly support Dying with Dignity, who glowingly asked questions to enable Long to provide a longer testimony.

Dying with Dignity is a very dangerous group since they support euthanasia for nearly every situation.

Long appeared very nervous. She spoke about the recent legal challenge whereby Dying with Dignity is supporting Claire Brosseau in her demand to be killed by euthanasia based on mental illness. 

Dying with Dignity must be nervous because they wouldn't launch an expensive court case if euthanasia for mental illness will be in place in March 2027.

Dying With Dignity's financials.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on February 5, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

There is a basic ethical rule we apply almost everywhere else in society, almost. If you profit from an outcome, you should not be the loudest voice advocating for it, but I guess Dying with Dignity didn’t get the morality memo.

Medicine used to understand this instinctively.

Doctors are not supposed to financially benefit from prescribing a particular drug. Judges are expected to recuse themselves if they have a stake in a case. Regulators are scrutinized when they take money from the industries they oversee. We understand or at least normal people understand intuitively — that money distorts judgment.

Except, apparently, when it comes to death.

In Canada, organizations that aggressively lobby for euthanasia and assisted death are allowed to operate as tax-exempt charities, raise millions of dollars, invest surplus funds, earn substantial interest, and spend heavily on advertising ON FACEBOOK all while presenting themselves as neutral advocates for “choice” and “dignity.”

Nothing about that is neutral. Advertising death is INSANE. This is a massive conflict of interest.

When an organization’s continued relevance, funding, and growth depend on expanding access to assisted death (poisoning by your dr), its incentives are no longer aligned with caution, restraint, or genuine exploration of alternatives. They are aligned with normalization. Expansion, rapid expansion at that and volume.

That doesn’t require malice, necessarily. It only requires incentives, and money is one hell of an incentive.

“In 2024 Dying with Dignity Canada had $9,231,137 in assets, of which $7,370,174 was in long term investments.”

Dying With Dignity Canada does not simply respond to public demand. It actively manufactures it daily, through marketing campaigns, political lobbying, media engagement, and messaging that frames euthanasia as compassionate, inevitable, and progressive.

In 2024 alone, the organization spent over $800,000 on advertising and promotions. That is not an educational pamphlet budget. That is a persuasion budget, the slow trip method to convincing a country to kill itself.

Now go ahead and ask yourself an uncomfortable but necessary question. Why does an organization advocating for death need to advertise so aggressively?

The answer is obvious once you allow yourself to see it. Advocacy groups that rely on donations must maintain emotional urgency. They must keep the issue front-of-mind. They must expand the pool of people who view their cause as necessary and virtuous.

Death becomes the product, dignity becomes the brand and once death becomes the product, vulnerable people become the market. This is where the conflict sharpens and this is where Canada currently is.

The people most affected by euthanasia policy are not healthy, empowered individuals making abstract philosophical choices. They are the elderly, the disabled, the chronically ill, the mentally unwell, the socially isolated, and those failed by an underfunded healthcare system.

These are precisely the people least equipped to push back against subtle pressure and the people most likely to internalize the message that their continued existence is a burden.

When an advocacy organization profits financially and institutionally from policies that make death easier to access than care, the ethical line has already been crossed.

There is another layer to this conflict that demands attention and to be pulled apart.

Many of the same euthanasia advocates and organizations pushing for expansion are closely connected to CAMAP (the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers) the pro death cult organization that trains physicians, educates assessors, and helps shape the protocols used to deliver MAID in Canada and even advised the NIH on its Maid Kits. Even though not a SINGLE DRUG USED IS FDA APPROVED FOR KILLING.

CAMAP is not a passive observer of policy. It is involved in operationalizing it. It trains the doctors. It influences standards. It normalizes practice and it exists within the same advocacy ecosystem lobbying for broader eligibility and fewer safeguards.

That is a textbook conflict of interest, in case anyone still isn’t getting it.

An organization that helps design, teach, and implement assisted-death protocols should not be aligned directly or indirectly with groups lobbying to expand its use. The people setting the rules should not benefit from increasing the number of times those rules are applied.

In any other area of medicine, this would trigger immediate alarm. We do not allow pharmaceutical companies to both write prescribing guidelines and profit from increased prescriptions without intense scrutiny. We do not permit regulators to be trained by the industries they oversee while those industries lobby for deregulation.

Yet in MAID, this overlap is treated as normal even virtuous. It’s disgusting, frankly.

The result is a closed loop. Advocacy drives expansion, expansion increases demand for trained providers, training institutions gain influence and legitimacy, and the system reinforces itself. Oversight collapses into endorsement. Safeguards quietly erode under the banner of “best practice.”

This is not conspiracy. It is structural misalignment.

When the same network benefits reputationally, professionally, and institutionally from the growth of assisted death, the possibility of genuine restraint disappears. The question stops being “Should this person die?” and becomes “How do we process this efficiently?” and once death becomes a system complete with training pipelines, protocols, certifications, and career pathways — it is no longer just a medical option.

It is an industry. A pro death industry, complete with organ removal and all. Nothing to see here….

What makes this even more disturbing is what isn’t being funded at the same scale.

Palliative care in Canada remains uneven, underfunded, and inaccessible in many regions. Mental health support is rationed. Disability supports are bureaucratic nightmares. Veterans, the poor, and the chronically ill routinely report being offered assisted death while waiting months or years for care.

Yet the organizations pushing hardest for euthanasia expansion are flush with cash. This is not coincidence. It is misalignment, it’s intentional… it’s evil.

A system that finds money for death but not for care is making a values statement whether it admits it or not and a charity that grows wealthier as death becomes more normalized cannot credibly claim to be free of conflict.

Canadians deserve better than this cult, Canadians should demand transparency about financial incentives, separation between advocacy and policy design, and independent oversight free from financial entanglement.

We would demand this in any other domain involving life-altering decisions. Death should not be the exception. When euthanasia advocacy becomes a lucrative, tax-exempt enterprise, the question is no longer whether choice exists.

The question is whether consent can remain truly free in a system where death pays and that is a question Canada has not yet had the courage to face.

It’s clear to me, it cannot be truly free, when it’s being coerced into killing itself.

Source: https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2026/02/dying-with-dignitys-lucrative-death.html