Quebec Bill 11 to permit euthanasia by advanced request.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A CBC radio program (french) by Davide Gentile & Daniel Boily reported on February 16.2023 that more than 7% of Québec deaths were done by (MAiD) euthanasia in 2022 representing more than 5,000 people dying by euthanasia, as compared to less than 1,000 deaths five years ago.

The CBC radio program reported that based on the data, the Commission on End-of-Life Care launched a consultation to research why Québec may have the highest rate of euthanasia in the world (British Columbia may have a higher euthanasia rate but the data is not available).

At the same time, Québec's legislature is debating Bill 11 which further expands their euthanasia law. Bill 11, among other changes, will permit euthanasia by advanced request (by advanced directive) in Québec. 

Bill 11 extends euthanasia by advanced request. Bill 11 states:

this Act allows the exercise of some of those rights by patients who are not at the end of life so that they receive end-of-life care in cases where their condition requires it.”

Bill 11 defines the act in the following manner and states:

Such a request is called a “contemporaneous request for medical aid in dying” or “contemporaneous request” where it is made with a view to an administration of such aid that is contemporaneous to the request. It is called an “advance request for medical aid in dying” or “advance request” where it is made in anticipation of a person becoming incapable of giving consent to care, with a view to an administration of such aid after the onset of that incapacity.

The only good news is that Bill 11, unlike the federal legislation, specifically excludes euthanasia for mental illness alone. Bill 11 states:

"a mental disorder other than a neurocognitive disorder is not considered to be an illness."

The federal report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15 calling for an expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada. The report recommended that children "mature minors" and patients with mental illnesses be eligible for euthanasia and that patients with illnesses such as dementia be permitted to make advanced requests by advanced directives for euthanasia.

Bill 11 is Québec's unique way of pushing the legislative agenda by permitting euthanasia by advanced request before the federal government acts on the report.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges you to write a short commentary on Bill 11 and submit it to the Québec legislation (Link to comment). Even if you fear that your comments will be ignored, it is important to oppose killing.

Euthanasia (killing) is bad enough, but killing by advanced consent changes the nature of consent, meaning, someone can be killed without a clear and present consent. When consent becomes secondary, it changes the question of who can be killed by lethal injection.

Many people may not be aware that Canada has two euthanasia laws, the federal law which legalized euthanasia by creating an exception to homicide in the criminal code and the Québec law, that only applies to Québec, and considers euthanasia as medical treatment. Québec is known for asserting its provincial constitutional powers and having unique regulations.

Bill 11 reminds us that provincial governments have the ability to amend the practise of euthanasia in their jurisdiction. For instance, the federal government has legalized euthanasia for mental illness alone and Québec is specifically excluding it.

Québec expands euthanasia law. They already have the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 7, The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia joined with the Living with Dignity citizen network to express their great disappointment that Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care and other legislative provisions was passed in the Québec legislature.

Many people are not aware that Canada has two euthanasia laws, a Québec law that came into effect in December 2015 and a federal law that came into effect in June 2016. Bill 11 amended the Québec law.

The Physicians' Alliance and Living with Dignity reported that Bill 11 will expand euthanasia in Québec in the following ways:

• creating an obligation for palliative care homes to offer MAID (in 6 months);
• offering MAID in cases of serious physical disability* (in 9 months);
• offering MAID by advance request* (in a maximum of 24 months).

*together with the other criteria of the Act respecting end-of-life care.

The Canadian Press reported that Bill 11 "also allows Quebecers to receive a doctor-assisted death in places other than hospitals, such as funeral homes and long-term care facilities."

A CBC radio program (in french) program by Davide Gentile & Daniel Boily reported on February 16, 2023 that more than 7% of deaths were from medical assistance in dying in Quebec with more than 5,000 people who died by MAiD in 2022, compared to less than 1,000 MAid deaths five years ago.

I reported on February 20 that the Québec government Commission on End-of-Life Care launched a consultation to learn why Québec has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Based on the passing of Bill 11, the euthanasia rate in Québec will only go up. As already stated, Bill 11 will force palliative care homes, that have refused to participate in MAiD, to provide it. Bill 11 expands the definition of eligibility to include people with serious disabilities and it expands euthanasia to be permissible by advanced request.

By forcing palliative care homes to provide euthanasia, some palliative care professionals will leave the profession. Defining euthanasia eligibility to specifically permit the killing of people with serious disabilities, who are not otherwise dying, confirms the eugenic nature of Québec's euthanasia program.

Pierre Luc Turcotte stated in his article published by the Montreal Gazette that:

In Germany, during the Second World War, "competent professionals" - doctors and nurses - participated in a euthanasia program that led to the deaths of 200,000 disabled persons. This eugenic policy was part of the Nazi's social cleansing efforts. But it was also seen and socially accepted as "medical care" based on the reasoning these lives were "not worth living." While a parallel with Bill 11 may seem far-fetched, eugenics similarly existed in Québec.

We must take every precaution to avoid repeating mistakes of the past.

I know that people will say that it is unacceptable to compare Canada and Québec's current euthanasia programs to the Nazi euthanasia program that began in 1939, but if they are different, then Turcotte is correct to urge that we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Québec has the highest euthanasia rate in the world and it has now expanded it's euthanasia law. It seems to me that Québec, and much of Canada, have become dedicated to death.

The question is not - why does Québec have the highest euthanasia rate in the world, but rather, what can be done to reverse the killing trend in Québec and Canada?

I recently projected that there will be at least 13,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2022 representing a 35% increase.

Québec forces palliative care homes to provide euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 7, The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia joined with the Living with Dignity citizen network to express their great disappointment that Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care and other legislative provisions was passed in the Québec legislature.

The Physicians' Alliance and Living with Dignity reported that Bill 11 will expand euthanasia in Québec in the following ways:

• creating an obligation for palliative care homes to offer MAID (in 6 months);
• offering MAID in cases of serious physical disability* (in 9 months); 
• offering MAID by advance request* (in a maximum of 24 months).
• *together with the other criteria of the Act respecting end-of-life care.

The Canadian Press reported that Bill 11 "also allows Quebecers to receive a doctor-assisted death in places other than hospitals, such as funeral homes and long-term care facilities."

Lee Harding, writing for the Epoch Times, was published on June 13, 2023 concerning the fact that Bill 11, which recently passed in Québec, forces palliative care institutions in Québec to provide euthanasia. Harding reported:

A new Quebec law that mandates palliative care facilities to provide medical assistance in dying has drawn criticism from euthanasia opponents and a palliative care advocate.

Bill 11 to expand medical assistance in dying (MAiD) passed in Quebec’s national assembly on June 7.

Harding reported that the Living With Dignity citizens network were particularly bothered by the requirement that all palliative care institutions would provide euthanasia. Harding reports:

The organization said it was even more “deeply disturbed” by a late amendment to the bill. Sonia Belanger, minister for health and seniors, added the provision that a hospice “cannot refuse to receive a person for the sole reason that the latter has submitted a request for medical assistance in dying” and created a deadline of six months for palliative care homes to comply.

Although only four palliative care hospices are known to not wish to offer MAiD, the government approach to admission criteria was opposed by the Alliance of Palliative Care Homes of Quebec during public consultations.

Harding reported Dr. Catherine Ferrier, a board member for Living with Dignity, as stating:

“It is of course very bad news that the law passed with such a big majority of votes. Politicians in Quebec seem to think that expansion of euthanasia is inevitable and that their role is to make it safe. It’s seen as an act of compassion,” Ferrier told The Epoch Times via email.

“But it is never safe and is an act of abandonment of the patient.”

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told Harding:

...patients had access to MAiD before the law, and the change only forces palliative care homes to become active participants.

“It’s a serious issue for conscience rights because now every palliative care institution is going to have to offer this,” Schadenberg said in an interview.

“There were a couple of palliative care institutions that were created more recently, meaning after the legalization of euthanasia they were created specifically because they wouldn’t offer it and they were trying to provide what we would call a safe space.”

Angelina Ireland

Angelina Ireland, the President of the Delta Hospice Society told Harding:

“Palliative care is a 50-year medical discipline that is very clear about what it entails, and it never includes MAiD and never includes euthanasia, and the father of palliative care, Dr. Balfour Mount, is from McGill University. So it’s very ironic in this moment that Quebec is moving in that direction,” Ireland said.

“This political movement is forcing a coercive makeover of what palliative care is. They’ll scream up and down that it’s about human rights, but it looks more like a cull to me because we’ve opened up Pandora’s Box. And when they just promised it’s only a little bit of MAiD, it’s turned out to be something that every vulnerable Canadian has to be afraid of.”

Ireland said the precedent in B.C. suggests that those morally opposed to the imposition of euthanasia will exit the profession, but the palliative care facilities will remain.

In February, the Québec Euthanasia Commission announced that euthanasia represented 7% of all 2022 deaths in Québec which represents the highest rate of euthanasia in the world.

Canada's Parliament to debate euthanasia for mental illness and incompetent people.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week I reported that Canada's Senate passed Bill C-7, the bill to expand Canada's euthanasia law, with dangerous amendments that would further expand the law. 

The Senate passed five amendments to Bill C-7. The primary amendments were expanding euthanasia to people with mental illness (with an 18 month reprieve for the federal government to develop rules) and incompetent people who had requested death in their advanced directive.

By passing Bill C-7, on February 17, with amendments, the bill now goes back to parliament for debate on the amendments.

Article: Senate passes Bill C-7 to allow euthanasia for mental illness and incompetent people (Link).

Join more than 52,000 people who have signed the petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

You need to contact your member of parliament to reject the Senate amendments and Bill C-7. The link to the list of Members of Parliament:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search

In September 2019, Québec Superior court Justice Christine Baudouin, in Truchon, struck down the requirement that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable in Canada's euthanasia law and gave the federal government until March 11, 2020 to amend the law. At that time, Canada was in the middle of a federal election. The government decided not to appeal the decision.

On February 17, Canada's Justice Minister, David Lametti asked the Quebec Superior court for a four month extension to incorporate the court decision into the law. The Quebec court agreed to the four month extension, giving the federal government until July 11, 2020 to extend the euthanasia law.

On February 24, the federal government introduced Bill C-7 in response to the Quebec Superior Court decision Truchon decision. Bill C-7 goes far beyond Truchon. Due to the COVID-19 crisis Bill C-7 was re-introduced on October 5, 2020. Canada's Justice Minister, once again, requested an extension from the Quebec Superior court and it was granted for December 18, 2020. 

In early December, parliament passed Bill C-7, without amendments and sent it to the Senate, but due to time restriction, the Justice Minister asked the Quebec Superior court for a third extension, that was granted, giving the federal government until February 26 to pass Bill C-7.

Justice Minister David Lametti has now asked the Quebec Superior court to for a fourth extension to stay the Truchon decision until March 26.

What is exasperating is the fact that the court imposed deadline should not be a primary concern. Even if the Quebec Superior court does not extend the stay of the Truchon decision, all it means is that the decision comes into effect without the actual law changing. Normally this would be a concern but since Bill C-7 goes far beyond Truchon, it is not an important deadline.

All this has happened without the government first completing its required parliamentary review of the law, a review that was legislated by the original euthanasia law that was passed in 2016. The government has no right expand MAiD without first reviewing the law.

For instance, as bad as Bill C-7 was, the Senate expanded the bill to include people with mental illness (with an 18 month "moratorium" to develop rules) and for incompetent people who request death in their advanced directive.

The mental illness alone amendment seemed like a "set-up" after Justice Minister Lametti, announced on November 24 that, once Bill C-7 passed, he wanted to expand euthanasia to people for mental illness alone.

The Senate had no right to even consider expanding euthanasia to people who request death in their advanced directive since the issue was not even studied by the House of Commons or Senate hearings on Bill C-7. The Senate simply reacted to an emotionally compelling speech by Senator Wallin.

What did  Bill C-7 do before it was amended?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for assisted death. Therefore, people who are not terminally ill can die by euthanasia. The Quebec court decision only required this amendment to the law, but Bill C-7 went further.

2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for assisted death. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by euthanasia.

3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period if a person's natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable. Thus a person could request death by euthanasia on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.

4. Bill C-7 creates a two track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.

5. As stated earlier, Bill C-7 falsely claims to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. The euthanasia law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that is intolerable to the person and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable. However, mental illness, which is not defined in the law, is considered a form of psychological suffering.

Bill C-7 went much further than the Quebec Superior Court Truchon  decision and now the Senate has made it worse. 

Join more than 52,000 people who have signed the petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

You need to contact your member of parliament to reject the Senate amendments and Bill C-7. The link to the list of Members of Parliament:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search

Great news: British parliament defeats assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news.

The British Parliament defeated the Edwards assisted suicide bill today (September 11) by a vote of 286 to 270. This is a great reason to celebrate.

We especially congratulate our friends at the Care Not Killing Alliance who have worked for so long to defeat this bill and previous bills. 

EPC letter sent to members of the British parliament (Link).

Some background

The Edwards assisted suicide bill was introduced on June 17, 2026 and was nearly identical to the Leadbeater bill that passed in the British parliament on November 29, 2024 by a vote of 330 to 275 at second reading and 313 to 291 in the final vote.

The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was fatally flawed and timed-out in the British House of Lords earlier this year.

What changed between November 29, 2024 and September 11, 2026?

The Leadbeater bill passed in the House of Commons but stalled in the House of Lords. During the House of Lords debate multiple flaws and concerns with the bill were uncovered. Even though the Leadbeater bill was flawed, Edwards introduced a nearly identical bill in order to invoke the Parliaments Act which states that if two nearly identical bills are passed in the House of Commons in two consecutive parliaments then the bill is not required to be approved by the House of Lords.

Edwards was hoping to prevent the bill from having to be debated in the House of Lords.

Keir Starmer - Andy Burnham

Another change was that Keir Starmer was the British Prime Minister during the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill debate. Starmer was a long-time promoter of assisted suicide.

Due to his drop in popularity, Starmer resigned as Prime Minister and Andy Burnham became the new Prime Minister.

Unlike Starmer, Burnham is not a strong supporter of assisted suicide. In late July Burnham, while speaking with reporters after a speech at a Jewish Care facility about social care reform commented on the upcoming assisted suicide debate. Burnham stated at (11:34):

"I take the view that the debate, and I don't say that there shouldn't be a debate at some point about those issues, personally I think that there is something that needs to happen first and that's the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care. 

I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care.”

Burnham did not say that he opposed assisted suicide but he did say that improvements to end-of-life care should come first, before Britain considers assisted suicide.

Burnham later stated that members of the governing Labour party were not going to be pressured to vote for the assisted suicide bill.

Finally, stories about Canada's euthanasia law continue to circulate in Britain. The assisted suicide lobby has tried to "undo" the damage from Canada's euthanasia reality but the multitude of stories make it impossible to negate the truth, that legalizing assisted suicide, even a law that is "tighter" than the Canadian law, will result in expansion over time.

In March 2026, Scotland's parliament rejected the McArthur assisted suicide bill by a vote of 69 to 57 and today, the British parliament rejected the Edwards assisted suicide bill by a vote of 286 to 270.

The battle is not over in Britain, but the victories are worth celebrating.

Euthanasia bill defeated in South Australia, euthanasia lobby suggests another bill next year

The Parnell/Key euthanasia bill was defeated in the South Australian legislature on Wednesday, November 24, by the voice vote. Parnell pulled the bill from receiving a final vote but admitted that the bill was probably going to be defeated by a vote of 12 to 9.

After the bill was defeated it was suggested that another bill will be brought before the legislature next year.

This is a significant victory.

Last year a similar bill was defeated by a vote of 11 to 9. Since then, South Australia had elections that resulted in 3 of the 11 members who opposed euthanasia being defeated. It was significant that two more Liberal members moved to oppose the bill.

An article by Michael Cook stated:

Liberal Jing Lee, a swinging voter, was not convinced either. "There are many problems with this Bill," she said. "What I am afraid of is voluntary euthanasia will inevitably mean in some cases involuntary euthanasia."

Family First MLC Dennis Hood argued that the bill had too many loopholes. He claimed that it allowed euthanasia for patients without a terminal illness and allowed people to take out life insurance policies shortly before undergoing euthanasia. Referral to psychiatrists was only optional in the bill and the proposed Voluntary Euthanasia Board was “toothless”. “This was a dangerous proposal and I’m glad it is off the table now so that we can get on with serious business for South Australia,” said Mr Hood.

An article by Sarah Martin that was published in Adelaide Now stated:

The Bill, prepared by Greens MLC Mark Parnell and ALP backbencher Steph Key, was defeated "on the voices" and did not go to a vote after debate indicated it would be defeated.

Mr Parnell said some key members had expressed in-principle support for voluntary euthanasia which had "left the door open" for future legislation.

"Of course we are disappointed the Bill didn't pass the Upper House last night, but this by no means is the end of the debate," he said.

"The Bill Steph Key and I have introduced is still very much alive in the Lower House (and) it's time for the Lower House to start doing some heavy lifting on this issue."

The debate lasted several hours, with about 12 members indicating they would vote against the Bill.

Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke said the defeat of the Bill was a "significant setback".

"Unless there are some lessons learnt from this experience and changes made, it is hard to hold out much hope for the voluntary euthanasia legislation to be presented to the SA Lower House next year."

The group HOPE (saying no to euthanasia) needs to be congratulated for the defeat of the bill. HOPE organized an effective opposition and lobbying campaign to defeat the bill.

Thank you to Paul Russell and the team at HOPE. http://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/

Quebec court grants extension to government to pass euthanasia Bill C-7. Bill C-7 must be rejected.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

More than 33,000 Canadians have signed the petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

Last week Justice Baudouin of the Quebec Superior Court granted the request by Canada's federal government to extend the time-frame to December 18 to implement a new euthanasia law.

On June 11, Canada's federal Attorney General David Lametti filed a motion in the Quebec Superior Court asking to extend until Dec. 18, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court’s suspension of its constitutional declaration last September.

Article: Five reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide (Link).

Lametti told the Quebec court that the government did not pass euthanasia bill C-7 because of the unprecedented challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government needs to reject Bill C-7 and begin the promised 5-year review of the euthanasia law with an open view to what is actually happening rather than expanding the euthanasia law.

In September 2019, Justice Baudouin, struck down the requirement in Canada's euthanasia law that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable. The Quebec court gave the federal government six months to amend the euthanasia law in line with their decision. The federal government did not appeal the decision.

At that time, I reported that striking down the "terminal illness" requirement in the law opened the door to euthanasia for psychiatric conditions  (Link).

On February 17, Canada's Justice Minister, David Lametti asked the Quebec Superior Court for a four month extension to amend Canada's euthanasia law. Justice Baudouin agreed to give the government until July 11 to expand Canada's euthanasia law.

On February 24, the federal government introduced Bill C-7 in response to the Quebec Truchon court decision.

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for assisted death. Therefore, people who are not terminally ill can die by euthanasia. The Quebec court decision only required this amendment to the law, but Bill C-7 went further.

2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for assisted death. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by euthanasia.

3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period if a person's natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable. Thus a person could request death by euthanasia on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.

4. Bill C-7 creates a two track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.

5. As stated earlier, Bill C-7 falsely claims to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. The euthanasia law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that is intolerable to the person and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable. However, mental illness, which is not defined in the law, is considered a form of psychological suffering.

Bill C-7 goes much further than the Quebec Superior Court Truchon decision. The government needs to reject Bill C-7 and begin the promised 5-year review of the euthanasia law.

Sign the petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

More Articles on Bill C-7:

• Does Bill C-7 prevent euthanasia for mental illness? (Link).
• Stop the extension of euthanasia by Bill C-7 (Link).
• More than 15,000 Canadians have died by euthanasia (Link).
• Canadians oppose euthanasia for mental illness and child euthanasia (Link).

Contact your Member of Parliament. Opposing Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) Bill C-7

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is urging you, our supporter, to contact your Member of Parliament during the summer and explain why you oppose Bill C-7, the bill that will expand euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada.

Current Members of Parliament (Link).

Sign the online petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

What do you need to know?

In September 2019, Justice Baudouin, struck down the requirement in Canada's euthanasia law that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable and gave the federal government six months to amend the euthanasia law in line with the Truchon court decision. The government did not appeal the decision.

At that time, I wrote that striking down the "terminal illness" requirement in the law opened the door to euthanasia for psychiatric conditions (Link).

On February 17, Justice Minister, Hon David Lametti asked Justice Baudouin for a four month extension to amend Canada's euthanasia law. Justice Baudouin granted the extension, giving the government until July 11 to implement the Truchon decision.

On February 24, the federal government introduced Bill C-7 in response to the Quebec Truchon court decision. Bill C-7 implements the Truchon decision but it also goes much further.

Based on the COVID-19 pandemic, Justice Minister Lametti requested another extension and Justice Baudouin of the Quebec Superior Court granted the request and extended the time-frame to implement the Truchon court decision until December 18.
 
There are several areas that we can focus on to stop Bill C-7.

1. The government claims that they must change the law based on the Truchon court decision. In fact, whether they pass Bill C-7 by December 18 or not, the Truchon decision will become law. They will suggest that Truchon only applies to Quebec, but there is not a prosecutor in Canada who will prosecute a doctor based on the Truchon decision.
2. The government appears to believe that the online consultation that was completed in January fulfills their legislated obligation of providing a 5-year-consultation starting in June 2020. The government is required to do a full, proper and open consultation, which the online consultation did not fulfill, and it should do so before amending Canada's euthanasia law. 
3. We need to focus on what Bill C-7 does and what it falsely claims to do.

What does Bill C-7 do? Among other changes:

1. Bill C-7 removes the legal requirement that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for assisted death. Therefore, people who are not terminally ill can die by euthanasia. The Quebec court decision only required this amendment to the law, but Bill C-7 went further.
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for assisted death. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by euthanasia.
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period if a person's natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable. Thus a person could request death by euthanasia on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.
4. Bill C-7 creates a two track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection. Remember, the legislation does not define the meaning of the phrase natural death is reasonably foreseeable.
5. Bill C-7 falsely claims to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. The euthanasia law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that is intolerable to the person and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable. However, mental illness, which is not defined in the law, is considered a form of psychological suffering.

When speaking to your MP we suggest that you emphasize the following:

• Bill C-7 allows MAiD when someone is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for assisted death. This takes away the right to change your mind.
• Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period if a person's natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable.
• Bill C-7 falsely claims to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. Because the legislation does not define the term - psychological suffering - therefore the legislation fails to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness.

Bill C-7 is dangerous, it is poorly written and sections of the bill will be challenged in court.

No matter what you think about euthanasia (MAiD) Bill C-7 must be defeated.

Current Members of Parliament (Link).

Sign the online petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link). 

More Articles on Bill C-7:

• Does Bill C-7 prevent euthanasia for mental illness? (Link). 
• Quebec court grants extension to government to pass Bill C-7. Bill C-7 must be stopped (Link). 
• Stop the extension of euthanasia by Bill C-7 (Link).  
• More than 15,000 Canadians have died by (MAiD) euthanasia (Link).

The UK will debate the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK will once again debate the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill, that died on the order paper in the House of Lords earlier this year. The bill originally passed, on November 29, 2024 at second reading, in the UK House of Commons, by a vote of 330 to 275.

The House of Lords debated multiple amendments to the Leadbeater bill. The bill was so flawed that the House of Lords (timed-out) before ever voting on the bill.

Lauren Edwards, (Labour MP) for Rochester and Strood, said she would bring back the Leadbeater bill while members of the governing Labour party are also talking about passing legislation to over-ride the requirement that the House of Lords pass the legislation. 

The BBC news story by Harry Farley stated:

By bringing exactly the same legislation, Edwards is threatening to trigger rarely used powers to override peers' objections should they refuse to pass it again.

Bills usually only become law if both Houses of Parliament agree on its final wording.

But the powers under the Parliament Act, which have only been used seven times in the last century, mean that if MPs pass an identical bill in two consecutive parliamentary sessions, peers cannot block it a second time. 

The Lords can suggest amendments which, if agreed by the Commons, would be added to the bill. But if they do not pass the bill as a whole before the end of the next session - usually in around a year's time - the unamended bill could become law even without their approval.

Dr Gordon MacDonald

Gordon MacDonald, CEO of the Care Not Killing Alliance urged his supporters to help them to fight the dangerous bill:

MPs will vote on the Bill on 11 September. To stop the Bill, we are now planning a summer campaign for which we need to raise an additional £45k to fund summer campaign spending.

The wind is blowing our direction. The House of Lords Leadbeater bill debate identified multiple problems with the language in the bill.

Also, Scotland defeated their assisted suicide bill on March 17, 2026 by a vote of 69 to 57. The Scottish bill originally passed at Second Reading by a vote of 70 to 56. 13 MSP's who originally supported the Scottish bill, at the final vote, changed their vote.

I predict that the British House of Commons vote will be very closer this time and it is likely that the assisted suicide bill will be defeated. 

The Canadian experience with euthanasia is crucial for defeating the UK assisted suicide bill. The UK House of Commons cannot ignore the multiple problematic stories from Canada. Sadly, these stories concern a person who already died by euthanasia, but these stories are changing the assisted suicide debate world-wide.

More articles on this topic:

• Great news. Scotland's assisted suicide bill is rejected (Read). 
• UK assisted suicide bill will likely die in the House of Lords (Read). 
• UK assisted suicide bill makes deception and coercion easier (Read). 
• Disabled House of Lords member harassed for opposing assisted suicide (Read). 
• Strong opposition to assisted suicide during House of Lords debate (Read).

Uruguay bill would legalize wide open euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide was introduced on March 11 in the Uruguayan Congress. The Uruguay bill lacks definition allowing it to be have a wide interpretation.

My commentary of the bill is based on a google translation of the text of the bill.

Article one of the bill provides legal protection for doctors who are willing to cause the death or assist the suicide of:

“a person of legal age, psychologically fit, ill with a terminal pathology, irreversible and incurable or afflicted by unbearable suffering, kills you or helps you kill yourself.”

It is clear that the bill legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide because it states that the doctor will kill you or help you kill yourself makes.

Euthanasia is an intentional act to kill a person, upon request, who is disabled, sick or suffering. In most countries, euthanasia is prohibited by homicide or murder laws.

Assisted suicide is to intentionally provide the means for another person to kill oneself.

The Uruguay bill allows for a wider interpretation because it does not define the terms terminal pathology or unbearable suffering. 

The bill does not require a person to try effective treatments. There are many terminal conditions, where the person, with treatment may have years to live.  The term unbearable suffering is subjective. Some people find their condition to be unbearable but once they have received pain or symptom management, they change their mind. If terms are not defined or subjective, the doctors who participate in euthanasia will interpret the meaning of these terms over time.

Article two of the bill requires a second doctor to examine and confirm the medical diagnosis of the person requesting death.

Article three of the bill requires the primary doctor to confirm that the person requesting death is competent, free from coercion, has a continuous desire to die, and knows about alternatives. This article requires a second interview be done at least 30 days after the first request. The bill allows someone else to sign for the person requesting death. Allowing another person to sign-off is inappropriate and dangerous.

Article four of the bill requires the formal request for death to be made 3 days after the second interview. Once again, the bill allows someone else to sign. The bill also allows one of the witnesses to be a beneficiary. In most jurisdictions, a beneficiary is unable sign a will. This issue deals with life and death, rather than property and finances.

Article five of the bill states that the request is revocable.

Article six of the bill requires that the doctor who prescribes the lethal drugs (assisted suicide) must assure that the drugs are only used by the person who they are prescribed for. If the prescribing doctor is not present at the time of death, how will the prescribing physician assure that this happens?

Article seven of the bill requires the doctor who does the act or prescribes the lethal drugs to report the death to the Commission on Bioethics and Integral Quality of Health Care of the Ministry of Public Health, whether the doctor was present at the death or not.

This bill provides the physician with the: power to decide if the person should die, legal protection to cause the death, and then legal oversight to self-report the death to the authorities. Self-reporting systems provide the perfect legal cover since the only person who would know if the law was broken is the person who is dead.

Comments: The bill does not define the key terms, therefore the Uruguay euthanasia and assisted suicide bill can be interpreted in wide manner. For instance, most US states define terminal illness with a six month prognosis. 

The bill does not require a person to at least try effective treatments. There are many medical conditions that, if untreated, become terminal. Unbearable suffering is a subjective term. A person may be depressed or experiencing suicidal ideation and decide that their health condition is unbearable in order to be put to death.

Canada’s euthanasia law does not define key terms, creating a natural slippery slope with the number of euthanasia deaths and reasons for killing expanding very quickly.

The bill gives the power to decide life or death to the primary doctor with confirmation by a second doctor. Nowhere does the bill prohibit doctor shopping which is common in jurisdictions that have legalized medical killing.

This bill is accurate when it states that the doctor can kill you or help you kill yourself. Most jurisdictions employ softened language such as assisted death or medical aid in dying.  We must call it what it is.

Legalizing euthanasia permits medical murder. It kills the patient, who is in need of care not killing, and it changes the doctor who turns from healing to killing.

Uruguay needs to rejects this bill.