Fix how we care for the most vulnerable. No to assisted suicide.

The following article by Zubir Ahmad was published by the Guardian on August 25, 2026.

Usually we comment on an article, but Dr Zubir Ahmad it was better to simply republish this article. The British parliament will once again vote-on an assisted suicide bill on September 11, 2026. The new bill is nearly identical to the previous bill.

Dr Zubir Ahmad

By Dr Zubir Ahmad 

As a doctor, I have spent much of my professional life caring for people at some of the most vulnerable moments they will ever face. I have seen the anxiety that surrounds the prospect of dying, and the desperate wish of patients and families to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Naturally, we all want people facing the end of life to be treated with kindness and respect. But when considering the debate on assisted dying, true compassion demands that we ask a more fundamental question. What kind of society are we building if, before we’ve fixed the systems designed to care for people, we introduce a system designed to help them die? As a former health minister who has seen the system from the inside, I am able to say it is not ready or equipped to answer this question.

Andy Burnham has been right to raise this as a priority issue at the start of his tenure as prime minister. Speaking at a care home recently, he explained that assisted dying should not be introduced while Britain’s palliative care and social care systems remain under such strain. A choice between death without adequate care and a death prematurely self-induced is not a real choice.

Indeed, as parliament prepares for yet another vote on assisted dying in England and Wales on 11 September, I fear that the offering has been somewhat mis-sold to the public. A state-controlled medicalised dying process is still a process – one where there remain risks of complication and suffering. The reality of assisted dying is more complex than the promise of a perfectly controlled death.

Many people imagine a system where a person facing a terminal illness can choose the exact moment and manner of their death, free from distress. But the legislation does not and cannot provide that certainty. A patient who self-administers medication to begin the dying process may still experience complications. The process may take time; it may require medical intervention. It may not happen where or when the person imagined. The promise of absolute control can therefore become something different in practice: an appearance of choice that does not always deliver the agency people expect.

I am far from the only medical professional to be worried about the prospect of assisted dying being available on the NHS. Among those raising concerns about the bill’s dozens of flaws have been the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Complex Life and Death Decisions (CLADD) group from King’s College London, the Royal College of Pathologists, the British Geriatrics Society and numerous other medical bodies and care authorities. The same concern comes up again and again: is it really a “free choice” when palliative care and social support fall short?

A person’s wish to die does not happen in isolation from their circumstances. It can be shaped by whether they feel supported, whether they fear becoming a burden, whether their family is coping and whether they have access to the care they need. That is why the state of our care systems cannot be treated as a separate issue from assisted dying. Timely access to palliative and social care remains too often determined by where someone lives rather than what they need. For some families, excellent end-of-life support is available; for others, particularly in rural areas as well as constituencies experiencing high inequality, the experience is one of waiting, uncertainty and having to fight for services that should be guaranteed.

A Labour government founded the NHS on a principle that remains as important today as it was at its creation: that healthcare should be there when people need it most, regardless of their circumstances. A postcode lottery in care cannot be ignored while debating a new legal pathway for people at the end of their life.

In Scotland, this concern has been expressed clearly, and was an important reason why, in March, 85% of Labour MSPs voted against the legalisation of assisted dying in Holyrood. The bill introduced in Westminster by my colleague Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, in October 2024 did not fare much better: too many concerns about patient welfare meant the House of Lords would not rubber-stamp the flawed text. And yet, on 11 September, MPs will be faced with yet another vote on assisted dying before the care systems are improved to a level which even makes that debate appropriate. Andy Burnham has his priorities right: this is the wrong debate at the wrong time. This is why I, and many others, will be voting against this bill, in pursuit of comfort, dignity and appropriate care for people who are vulnerable and dying.

Zubir Ahmed MP is an NHS vascular and transplant surgeon, and served as the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department of Health and Social Care from 6 September 2025 to 12 May 2026.

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

A deeper dive into the California assisted suicide data.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On August 18 I published the article: California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data which explained the 2025 California assisted suicide report data, uncovering shoddy reporting and missing data in the California assisted suicide reports.

The article reported that the 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1,235 reported assisted suicide deaths which is up by 11% from 1,113 in 2024 and 1839 poison prescriptions written in 2025 which was up by almost 8% from 1710 poison prescriptions in 2024.

*Based on incomplete data in previous California assisted suicide reports, I predict that the actual 2025 data is around 1975 poison prescriptions and 1330 assisted suicide deaths.

Let's examine the incomplete data in the report.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written and 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and states that there were 1710 poison prescriptions written and 1,113 reported assisted suicide deaths.

Therefore the 2025 report increased the number of 2024 poison prescriptions by (119) 7.5% and the number of reported assisted suicide deaths by (81) almost 8%. 

Based on the 2024 data, you can understand why I am predicting that the 2026 California assisted suicide report will indicate that in 2025 there were approximately 1975 poison prescriptions written and 1330 assisted suicide deaths in 2025. This data does not include the people who received a poison prescription and whose ingestion status is unknown.

Reasons for data inaccuracy in the report.

The 2025 report indicates that there were 380 people who received the lethal poison but whose ingestion status was unknown. When the ingestion status is unknown, they know that the person received the lethal prescription, but they do not know if the person died or how they died. The 380 people, whose ingestion status was unknown, could have died by assisted suicide with no report being filed.

The 2025 report acknowledges that the data discrepencies and states the following:

Note that cumulative counts reported above do not match prior reports. These differences arise from several factors including: 

• the timing of forms received; 

• the registration of deaths; and, 

• the inclusion of duplicate records in prior reports, which have been removed.

There are problems with the timing of forms received and with the registration of deaths, but the removal of duplicate reports, does not explain how the 2025 report increased the numbers from previous years as removing duplicate reports would decrease the numbers.

Let's examine the 2021 assisted suicide death data. The 2025 report states that 3 more 2021 poison prescriptions were uncovered in 2025 and 2 more assisted suicide deaths. These three poison prescriptions and 2 assisted suicide deaths were found 4 years late. Where were these reports?

Further to that there are intentional euthanasia deaths in California, but just not reported. A supporter of ours sent us the following private message:

California is MUCH further down the road than the public understands. In 2024 I was in a 'recovery' nursing home/hospice in Sacramento. I was in for congestive heart failure (CHF). I was personally pressured, as was my family, to be compassionate and face an objective reality: "He is incurable and about to die" My death at their hand would NOT have been reported. CHF would be listed as the cause. THAT is the law and practice in California.

Other issues from the report.

The report indicates that 94.3% of the people who are approved for assisted suicide are receiving hospice and/or palliative care. This is a bold statement considering the fact that the assisted suicide doctors are encouraged to enroll assisted suicide requesters into palliative care.

It is one thing to be enrolled in hospice and/or palliative care. It is another thing to be receiving hospice and/or palliative care. In other words, the death lobby wants it to appear that nearly everyone who died by assisted suicide was also being cared for by hospice and/or palliative care.

There needs to be an independent study conducted by a doctoral student who is honestly attempting to uncover the real data. It is very likely that there is a large number of unreported assisted suicide deaths in California.

Assisted suicide is for the privileged.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in January 2026 that California has the most diverse population in the US. The January 2026 report stated that in July 2025:

No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of the state population: 41% of Californians are Latino, 34% are white, 17% are Asian American or Pacific Islander, 5% are Black, 3% are multiracial, and less than 1% are Native American or Alaska Natives, according to US Census Bureau estimates.

The 2025 California asssisted suicide report indicated that those who died by assisted suicide:

• 85.5% of the people were White, 
• 6.4% of the people were Asian, 
• 5.5% of the people were Latino, 
• 1.2% of the people where Black,
• 1% were Multiracial, and
• none of the people were Native American.

White people are predominantly dying by assisted suicide even though they represent only 34% of California's population.

The Public Policy Institute of California published in February 2026 that 35 - 37% of Californians have a University degree and yet the California assisted suicide report indicates that more than 52% of the assisted suicide deaths are people with a University degree.

The California assisted suicide reports have missing data and under-reporting is very likely and yet assisted suicide is a life and death issue. 

People have the right to know the assisted suicide reality in California and everywhere. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition calls on the California Department of Public Health to carry out an independent, in depth research project which would:

• do a large survey of how people in California are dying,
• examine the large number of cases where the person received the assisted suicide prescription, but whose ingestion status is unknown,
• examine more closely the reality of why people are asking for death by assisted suicide.

It is likely that an independent study would uncover unreported assisted suicide deaths and similar to the Netherlands, it is likely that the report would uncover that euthanasia (homicide) deaths are also happening in California.

Catholic Sisters challenge New York state assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Madeleine Long reported in The Free Press on July 17, 2026 that several orders of Catholic sisters are challenging the New York assisted suicide law. This law requires the sisters to inform their patients that they can have assisted suicide and the New York law conflicts with the federal law which prohibits federal funding for assisted suicide.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the assisted suicide bill into law in February which will take effect on August 5, 2026.

Long reported that:

A coalition of Catholic healthcare providers filed suit in federal court in Albany on Friday, arguing that New York’s new assisted dying law would force them to choose between their faith and their ability to provide care for the sick, the elderly, and the dying.

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of New York, names 13 plaintiffs, including multiple congregations of nuns such as the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Diocese of Rockville Centre and Catholic Health, a network of five Long Island hospitals, are also named.

Long explains how the law contravenes the federal law prohibiting funding for assisted suicide:

The law works in tandem with an existing New York statute, the Palliative Care Information Act, which requires doctors and nurse practitioners to inform terminally ill patients of all their end-of-life options. Now that assisted dying is one of them, medical professionals must proactively raise it with patients—whether or not the patient asks.Catholic healthcare has always refused to participate in assisting suicides.

Long further explains that:

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the Medical Aid in Dying Act unconstitutional and block its enforcement before it takes effect next month. At its core, the complaint argues the law violates the First Amendment by compelling doctors and nurses at religious facilities to counsel patients about assisted dying and by interfering with the Church’s ability to govern its own healthcare institutions. It also states that the law conflicts with federal statutes prohibiting the use of federal healthcare funds for assisted dying—a claim that applies to several plaintiffs who receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Noncompliance carries significant consequences, according to the complaint, including civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, potential loss of operating licenses, and criminal liability resulting in up to a year in prison for willful violations.

New York’s law includes a provision permitting religious facilities to opt out of prescribing or administering lethal drugs on their premises. But according to the sisters’ lawyers, the opt-out is among the narrowest in the nation, narrower than similar laws in California, Oregon, and Washington, where religious providers can opt out of all participation if their faith requires it.It is important to note that Catholic healthcare is challenging their obligation to participate in assisting a suicide as well as they are challenging the use of federal money for assisting a suicide.

EPC believes that the court should recognize the conscience rights of care-givers and strike down the law based on federal assisted suicide funding restrictions.

For those who believe that assisted suicide is a choice, then they should also acknowledge the choice of others to not participate in assisted suicide. Participation is wider than the actual act of prescribing or directly assisting the suicide.

Further to that, assisted suicide is not about "autonomy" since it requires the direct involvement of medical professionals who are complicit with a person's suicide.

Medical professionals should never be involved with killing or assisting suicides since it changes the nature of care. For ethical healthcare to survive, there must be a commitment to always care and never kill.

More articles on this topic:

• New York is opening a pandora's box with assisted suicide (Link). 
• New York Governor to sign assisted suicide bill (Link).

France's Senate rejects assisted suicide for the second time.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's Senate once again defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide, on Monday May 11, 2026 by a vote of 151 to 118. The Senate then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the part of the law that improves access to palliative care.

On January 21, 2026, France's Senate defeated a similar assisted suicide bill that had passed in the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025.

Even though France's Senate has defeated the assisted suicide bill twice and both times overwhelmingly passed a bill to improve palliative care, based on France's system of government the assisted suicide bill may pass again in the National Assembly and still become law. Third reading on the bill in the National Assembly could still happen in June.

France needs to seriously consider the experience with euthanasia in Québec and completely reject killing people by poison. Québec legalized euthanasia based on "exceptional circumstances" in 2015. The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Previous articles on the French euthanasia debate.

• UN Committee launches investigation into France's euthanasia bill (Link).
• France's National Assembly votes to legalize euthanasia (Link).

Tamara Jansen (MP) Parliament hill speech on Bill C-218. Preventing euthanasia for mental illness.

This is the speech by Tamara Jansen on Monday April 13 on parliament hill at the EPC rally to almost 100 participants who attended in the pouring rain.

My friends,

Tamara Jansen speaking at EPC rally.

You know, when I first got involved in politics, it wasn’t because I had some grand plan to stand on Parliament Hill one day and speak about a bill like this.

It started much more simply. I got to know my local MP Mark Warawa and loved what he stood for.  I started helping him organize town halls, meet with people in the community, and make connections.  He was doing all this because he was passionate about the vulnerable citizens living among us.

And one of the things Mark cared deeply about was palliative care. He believed, in a very real and practical way, that when people are suffering, our job is to come alongside them—to care for them, to support them, to remind them that they are not alone.

Now, Mark also served on the original committee studying what would become MAiD, and I remember him saying—more than once—that we needed to be very careful because once you open a door like that, you don’t always get to decide how far it swings.

At the time, some people thought that was a bit of a stretch.

But I don’t think anyone would say that today.

Because here we are, just a few years later, and what began as something quite limited has been expanded, piece by piece, to the point where we are now planning to offer MAiD to those whose only condition is mental illness—people who are not at the end of life.

And somewhere along the way, I found myself thinking: this isn’t what people believed they were agreeing to.

That’s why I brought forward Bill C-218, building on the work of my colleague Ed Fast—because at some point, when you can see where a road is leading, you have to be willing to stop and say, “Let’s take another look at this before we go any further.”

Now, when you take the time to really look at what is being proposed here, and you listen carefully to the people who are working most closely with those who are suffering, you begin to understand that this issue is far more complex than it is often presented by organizations like Dying With Dignity. We have heard from psychiatrists across this country—highly trained, deeply experienced professionals—who are telling us, quite plainly, that when it comes to mental illness, there is no reliable way to determine that a condition is truly irremediable.

That word matters, because it is the very foundation upon which MAiD rests. It assumes that we can identify, with confidence, when suffering cannot be alleviated. But in the case of mental illness, the evidence simply does not support that level of certainty, and the doctors themselves are telling us so.

And if we pause for a moment and reflect on that, it raises a very serious concern. Because what we are being asked to accept is not a clear medical conclusion, but a judgment—one that carries permanent consequences. Mental illness does not follow a straight line. It shifts, it responds, it improves, sometimes in ways that surprise even those who have spent years studying it. People who once believed they could not go on have, with time and care, found their footing again. And yet, under this expansion, we are being asked to make life-ending decisions with no clear certainty that things couldn’t improve with time and care.

But there is another piece of this that Canadians often don’t realize. Under the current framework, there is no requirement that a person must have received every reasonable treatment—or even meaningful treatment at all—before being approved for MAiD. Just think about that for a moment. We are prepared to offer a permanent solution, even in situations where the path to care has not been fully pursued, or where access to that care may have been limited in the first place.

And when you place that reality alongside the circumstances many people are living in, it becomes much more serious. Because vulnerability is not just about a diagnosis—it is about the whole situation a person finds themselves in. It is about someone who feels isolated, someone who feels like a burden on their family, someone who looks around and quietly begins to wonder whether others might be better off without them. Those are not rare thoughts in moments of deep struggle—they are, in fact, painfully common.

So we have to ask ourselves what happens when a person in that state is presented with MAiD as an option. Are they making a free and fully unburdened choice, or are they responding to a set of pressures—emotional, social, even financial—that are shaping that decision in ways we cannot measure?

At the same time, experts who have spoken to us have raised another concern, one that is difficult to ignore. They are seeing individuals who are already struggling with suicidal thoughts becoming aware that there is now a system that can provide the outcome they want.

And in some cases, when one door closes, another can be found—because what has emerged is a form of doctor shopping, where individuals seek out assessors who are willing to say yes, even when others have urged caution or continued care. Some experts have described this as creating a kind of pull, where MAiD begins to appear not as a last resort after every avenue has been exhausted, but as an available alternative.

We have already seen the consequences of that. Kiano’s story is one that many of you here know well. He was a young man who was struggling, who needed support, who needed time, and whose mother fought for him—fought the system for him—because she believed, as any parent would, that her son’s life was worth fighting for. And yet, despite those efforts, he was eventually able to find a pathway that led to his death. How many more Kiano’s are out there that we have not heard about?

And that is where this becomes more than policy. Because when a system allows that kind of outcome, it raises a very serious question about whether we are truly protecting the vulnerable, or whether we are making it easier for them to give up at the very moment they most need someone to stand in the gap for them.

And so I want to close by simply saying thank you.

Thank you to every one of you who has taken the time to stand here today, and to so many others across this country who may not be on this hill, but who have picked up the phone, written an email, or had a conversation with their Member of Parliament because they know this matters.

These things are not always easy to do. They take time, they take courage, and they come from a place of deep concern—not just for ourselves, but for people we may never meet.

And that, more than anything, is what this bill represents.

It represents a decision, as a country, to stand with those who are struggling… especially when they cannot stand on their own. It represents a belief that vulnerability should never become a pathway to being overlooked, or worse, to being offered something final when what is still needed is care, time, and hope.

And I want you to know that your voices are being heard.

In Parliament, those calls, those letters, those conversations—they matter. They shape decisions, they influence outcomes. They remind every Member of Parliament that behind every vote are real people, real families, and real lives.

So please, keep going.

Keep speaking.

Keep standing for those who need someone to stand for them.

Together we will reaffirm the kind of country we want to be.  One that truly cares for those most vulnerable in communities across Canada.

Thank you.

• Tamara Jansen speech in the House of Commons on Bill C -218, preventing euthanasia for mental illness alone (Read).
  

I strongly encourage you to reject MAID offered for mental disorders

This chain of letters begins with a letter to Mario Simard Bloc Québécois’ Member of Parliament for Jonquière. Mario Simard then responses to Odile Marcotte and then Odile Marcottee responds to Mario Simard. This letter chain was originally written in French and then translated to English.

Dear monsieur Simard,

I am writing to you regarding Bill C-218 and would be very grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter. I have known suicidal individuals and people suffering from mental illness, and I am deeply troubled by the idea that the government could encourage them, in any way, to resort to medical assistance in dying (MAID).

There are very good reasons why the implementation of MAID for mental disorders without other medical conditions has been postponed twice. In Quebec, it was even rejected. The opinions of healthcare professionals reflect deep divisions on this issue. While a majority of the population still supports MAID in general, only a minority of that population supports it in these specific cases.

It is crucial to emphasize that MAID for mental disorders is not a logical extension of current practice. On the contrary, it contradicts the fundamental principles of that practice. Indeed, the two essential criteria for eligibility for medical assistance in dying (as currently practiced) are (a) the irremediable nature of the patient's condition and (b) the patient's free and informed consent.

However, the irremediable nature of a mental or psychological disorder cannot be determined in the same way as for a physical illness. Scientific knowledge of mental disorders is not currently as advanced as that of physical illnesses. Psychiatrists are unable to predict which of their patients with similar mental disorders will see their condition improve; nor can they say how long it will take.

Many people who have experienced long periods of acute mental distress are convinced that they would no longer be alive today if MAID had been available while they were being treated for their illness.

Furthermore, the very nature of psychiatric symptoms often prevents patients from exercising their freedom of choice, making the ethical practice of MAID almost impossible.

Here is what the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP) says on this subject:

“With regard to patients’ ability to provide consent to medical assistance in dying, the very nature of mental illness can impair decision-making capacity. Those suffering from acute mental illness are routinely encouraged to avoid making major decisions. The decision to prematurely end one’s life is of enormous and grave importance and should not be made by someone suffering from mental illness.”

A particular difficulty arises from the practical impossibility of reliably distinguishing between the rational (desired) motivation underlying a typical MAID request, on the one hand, and the expression of pathological suicidal desires that appear rational, on the other. This is again the perspective of the ACPS.

"For people at the end of life, there may be little or no overlap between medical assistance in dying and suicide in the traditional sense of the term. However, the risks of overlap increase sharply for people with chronic, but non-terminal, conditions, and particularly for those with mental disorders."

The constitutional rationale that compelled the Parliament of Canada to create an exception to the Criminal Code allowing for MAID is based on a trade-off between "justice" for those frustrated by prohibition, on the one hand, and the state's responsibility to protect those made vulnerable by the introduction of MAID, on the other. According to the Carter decision, an outright ban on MAID is unreasonable, and such a trade-off is necessary.

However, for the reasons stated above, the number of potentially vulnerable individuals will increase dramatically if Parliament decides to extend access to MAID to those suffering from mental illness but not other medical conditions.

Furthermore, in accordance with the medical perspective of Quebec's law on end-of-life care, the National Assembly of Quebec determined that medical assistance in dying could not constitute legitimate medical care solely for individuals with mental illness. This was the conclusion of a special committee's work, and this conclusion, undoubtedly shared by the majority of Quebecers, was subsequently ratified by the National Assembly in the new version of the law on end-of-life care.

I have just outlined the reasons why the practice of MAID for purely psychiatric purposes has been met with such a lukewarm reception and its introduction has been delayed for so long. In short, this introduction will lead to the unnecessary deaths of people whose conditions are by no means irreversible, in many cases, and whose requests do not stem from a genuine choice but from the symptoms of the illness itself. I strongly encourage you to seize this opportunity, not to inadvertently broaden the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying, but to set firm limits by definitively rejecting MAID offered for mental disorders in the absence of other medical conditions. 

 

Please vote YES on Bill C-218.

Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM

Bonjour, Mme Marcotte,

 

Thank you very much for your letter and for the sensitivity with which you express your concerns. The issues surrounding medical assistance in dying, particularly when mental health is involved, raise profound and legitimate questions, and I wish to acknowledge the sincerity and importance of your initiative. Allow me to outline, with all due respect to your position, the Bloc Québécois’ perspective on Bill C-218. 

 

First, this bill is effectively unnecessary, since Parliament has already passed Bill C-62, which maintains the exclusion of mental illness as the sole condition for eligibility for MAID until March 17, 2027. Before any changes are made, a Joint Committee must thoroughly analyze the issue and determine whether legislative amendments are necessary. Therefore, no decision can be made until this rigorous work is completed. 

 

Second, we believe it is not the Conservatives’ place to unilaterally decide on such a complex and sensitive issue. Their moral or religious opposition to MAID cannot justify restricting the fundamental rights of Quebecers. Everyone remains free to choose not to use MAID, but it would be unfair to impose this position on the entire population. 

 

Furthermore, the preamble to Bill C-218 wrongly pits access to MAID against mental health care.

 

It is entirely possible (and necessary) to strengthen mental health services while respecting the rights of people experiencing severe and incurable suffering. This is why the Bloc Québécois continues to call for increased health transfers so that the provinces can provide adequate and accessible services. 

 

Finally, this bill does not address the demands of the Quebec government. The National Assembly wants the Criminal Code amended to allow advance MAID requests in provinces that have adopted a clear legislative framework, such as Quebec. A bill along these lines, such as the one proposed by Senator Wallin, would have received our support. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Bill C-218. I want to assure you that the Bloc Québécois remains deeply committed to protecting vulnerable people, respecting individual autonomy, and defending Quebec's democratic choices. Your letter demonstrates a genuine concern for human dignity, and I sincerely thank you for it. Please accept my sincere regards. 

Mario Simard Member of Parliament for Jonquière

Response from Odile Marcotte.

Dear monsieur Simard, 

Thank you for your reply, as I know you are very busy. I would like to make a few brief comments on it. 

You mention the rigorous work that the Special Joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Medical Assistance in Dying will undertake. I have been following the debate on Medical Assistance in Dying (which was initially called euthanasia) since its inception, and I am convinced that there is just as much rigor on one side (the one opposing the expansion of MAID) as on the other. Rigor cannot resolve this issue, since it is philosophical (and not merely moral and religious, as you seem to think) conceptions that are at odds. 

The question is whether suicide should be part of the care provided by the public health service. It is naive to think that healthcare for people with mental illness will not be affected by extending MAID to their cases, firstly because MAID is less expensive than such care, and secondly because the perspective of healthcare professionals will inevitably be altered by this extension. 

Thank you for reminding me that I am free not to use MAID, but I note that your party demonstrates little critical thinking in the face of propaganda from the College of Physicians and the Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity. The respect shown by these organizations for differing opinions is entirely theoretical, since all palliative care homes in Quebec are now obligated to provide MAID to those who request it, regardless of the distress this obligation will cause to terminally ill individuals whose loved ones have committed suicide and who wish to end their lives in peace. 

Sincerely, Odile Marcotte