Wesley Smith - Criticism of organ donation article. My article stands.

This article was published by National Review online on December 31, 2025.

I republished Wesley Smith's article - Bioethicist: Let Surgeons Kill Patients During Organ Harvesting on December 29, 2025. This is Wesley Smith's response to criticism of his article.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

I welcome Lawrence Masek’s response to my criticism of his journal article. I am sorry he didn’t appreciate my perspective, but I take nothing back.

Let’s start with a matter of little importance. Masek claimed I said his article would curl your toes. No, I wrote that I cover articles published in the professional journals because “some” of them would. Whether your digits react to his effort thusly is a matter for you to decide.

As to the substance of his rebuttal, Masek claims at great length that the dead donor rule, which forbids killing for organs, would also prohibit many common interventions in clinical medicine as “suicide.” He writes:

Permitting lethal organ procurement would enable patients to commit suicide by donating their vital organs, but the same is true of permitting lethal palliation and the refusal of life support.

This is verifiably untrue. Dying from a side effect of an ethical medical treatment like palliation is not suicide any more than a patient dying during heart surgery is euthanasia.

As for refusing life support, that is beyond a reasonable doubt, not suicide.

• First, the patient might not die. Take out a vital organ and there can be no other outcome.
• When refusing life support, if the patient dies, it is from the illness or injury. In contrast, removing a vital organ causing death is not a natural demise.
• Finally, the issue of whether removing or refusing life support is suicide was decided in 1997 by the Supreme Court in Vacco v. Quill, in which the Justices ruled unanimously: “The distinction between letting a patient die and making that patient die is important, logical, rational, and well established.”

I can understand that as a professor at a Catholic university (which I didn’t think relevant), he would eschew a utilitarian label. But his article is certainly utilitarianish. The following is from his conclusion. You be the judge (my emphasis):

I conclude with an assertion that seems plausible but for which I do not have an argument: If an action would save someone’s life without killing anyone, then the burden of proof is on those who say that the action is wrong, not on those who say that the action is right. If this principle is correct, the burden of proof belongs to proponents of the DDR, specifically the version that prohibits procuring vital organs in a way that would not kill the donor.

Someone might adopt this version of the DDR as a way to avoid killing a donor, but I have argued that procuring a vital organ in a way that kills the donor is not always wrong. I hope my arguments will persuade proponents of the DDR to reconsider the rule or to defend it without relying on principles of ethics that are too strict or views of intentions that are too broad.

In the real world, you can’t procure vital organs without ultimately killing donors. Distorting definitions to allow the ethically impermissible to serve a greater good sure seems utilitarian to me.

That Masek doesn’t offer specific policy proposals is irrelevant. The implications of his argument are quite clear.

Frankly, if his intention was to toe the line of permissible ethical argumentation from a sanctity of life perspective or to somehow fortify the defense of the DDR, it didn’t work.

They said assisted suicide was for terminal cases. Now they're putting pressure on disabled people.

Alex Schadenberg was interviewed by Guiliano Guzzo for the Italian La Verità newspaper. The article was published on January 5, 2026. (google translated).

Alex Schadenberg

By Guiliano Guzzo

You can examine data, scientific studies, and reports—indeed, it's essential—to understand the phenomenon as a whole. But if you want to dig deeper, there's no better way to truly understand the scourge of assisted dying in Canada than, of course, to talk to a Canadian. Ideally, someone who also follows and monitors the issue regularly. For this very reason, La Verità contacted Alex Schadenberg, 57, an activist born in Woodstock, Ontario, and an expert on these issues as Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Schadenberg, how do you describe the reality of assisted death in Canada?

"Euthanasia was legalized in Canada in 2016 with the promise of being strictly controlled and limited to terminally ill and suffering people. From the beginning, however, the law was poorly defined and began to expand immediately; This meant that assisted dying was given to people with a terminal condition but who were not likely to die anytime soon. The law was then expanded in 2021 to include people who are not terminally ill, but rather suffering from an undefined "serious and irreparable medical condition." The 2021 extension also included euthanasia for mental illness only, the implementation of which has now been postponed to March 2027.

What does all this mean in practice?

"There are euthanasia deaths of people with disabilities experiencing homelessness, poverty, or difficulty accessing medical care. Some Canadian doctors now specialize in euthanasia, which means they are involved in many deaths and tend to administer death more widely."

What are the next frontiers?

"The next frontiers of Canadian euthanasia law, as I mentioned earlier, are the implementation of euthanasia only for mental illnesses—scheduled for March 2027—the extension of the law to advance euthanasia requests, meaning doctors will be able to terminate an incapacitated person who had previously requested death while still capable of discernment, and to children defined as "mature minors."

What consequences is the spread of assisted dying in the country having for the sick and disabled?

"The point is that since March 2021, people with disabilities have the right to euthanasia based on a "grevious and irreparable medical condition," not defined by law. There are now many stories of people with disabilities being urged to request euthanasia, including Roger Foley and Heather Hancock, to name just two. Because many people with disabilities live in poverty or have difficulty finding affordable housing, they often already feel devalued. Add to this Canada's health crisis—with people with disabilities having great difficulty receiving the care they need—and it becomes clear how legalized euthanasia is threatening their lives.

Are people in Canada aware of the bitter fruits of the euthanasia mentality?

We note that some groups recognize the changes that have occurred in Canada since the legalization of euthanasia. For example, there is a group of veterans who publicly reacted when, instead of the treatment they needed, they were offered assisted death. Not only that, there are people with disabilities who are afraid of going to the hospital. During a hearing before the Canadian Parliament's Finance Committee, Krista Carr, CEO of Inclusion Canada, a national federation of people with disabilities, stated:

"People with disabilities today are very afraid, in many circumstances, to present themselves to the healthcare system with recurring problems, because assisted dying is often proposed to them as a solution to what is considered intolerable suffering, caused by issues such as poverty and the situations in which people with disabilities find themselves disproportionately compared to other Canadians."

What role do the media play in all of this?

"The majority of mainstream media outlets fully support euthanasia, despite the many articles questioning its implementation. It is very difficult for our views to be reflected in mainstream media in Canada."

In Italy, Parliament is debating the introduction of a law on assisted suicide following several rulings by the Constitutional Court. 

What would you say to Italian parliamentarians?

"My message to Italy is not to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide. Almost all jurisdictions that have legalized assisted death, even if they did so with "good intentions," have subsequently expanded their laws. Laws are expanded by practice, meaning that a doctor performs the act in a controversial case and, when nothing happens, others follow suit. They also act as if they were forced to expand the law on the basis of discrimination. Once legalized, it is argued that the "restrictions" are actually discriminatory because they deny equal access to the law.

Even when examining American assisted suicide laws, we see this phenomenon.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Sponsors Debate on Medical Homicide for Mental Illness

Starting the New Year: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Sponsors Debate on Medical Homicide for Mental Illness

Gordon Friesen

Beginning in one week, Monday, January 12, 2026, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition President, Gordon Friesen, will be participating in a structured exchange of views with the authors of the pro-MAID information site, Maid In Canada, Kim Carlson and Paul Magennis.

The primary focus of this debate will be the question of euthanasia eligibility, to include persons whose sole complaint is one of mental illness, now scheduled to commence in March, 2027.

This debate will consist of three contributions from each participant, simultaneously published on both Blogs, and will thus provide a steady Monday feature, for the next six weeks.

Although the comment section will be open on each post, it would be bad form for EPC to publish long form comments, on these articles, until the six weeks are completed. However, those readers wishing to write longer opinions, are encouraged to do so, for we will be happy to set them aside for publication, after the debate has run its course

In addition, we strongly encourage third party platforms to comment throughout the process, as maximum visibility and interest are what will make the whole thing worthwhile.

Gordon Friesen will go first, as the immediate pretext for debate was provided by a very vigorous Maid in Canada critique, of our Parliamentary Press Gallery Conference held on October 28, 2025, to which Gordon will offer his rebuttal.

As stated on our "About" page --unchanged over the last 20 years-- "Members of the Coalition believe that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be treated as murder/homicide, irrespective of whether the person killed has consented to be killed".

We have worked tirelessly, throughout that time, to prevent the passage of legalization and expansion Bills, here and around the world.

The authors of Maid in Canada, on the other hand, consider euthanasia to be a medical treatment, of which they feel personally motivated to theoretically, and practically, support the practice.

One might ask why we would wish to platform such views. And the answer is simple: these are crucially important subjects, and the more public interest which is stimulated, the more, we believe, that our own positions will gain traction.

Medical homicide for mental illness, in particular, is a key milestone on the route to fully implementing the death-medicine program. And that milestone has already been proclaimed in Law, to be reached in one year.

To accept is not an option.

A very important project of law, Bill C-218, has therefore been introduced, by our allies, to permanently prevent this threat.

We at the Coalition believe it is essential to pull out all the stops in support of Bill C-218. To that end, we have held two Parliamentary Press Gallery Conferences, published numerous articles on this subject, and substantially republished the articles of others.

In addition, we have recently released a 1 hr. documentary entitled "Life Worth Living", which is now available for rental, purchase, and sponsored group showings, with or without provided speakers.

Most importantly, We have also published a large number of first person accounts, from people, themselves suffering (or having suffered) from suicidal symptoms of mental illness, and who denounce the dangers of medical homicide for themselves, and for others.

The most recurrent theme in this vein, can be simply expressed as follows: 

"I have suffered greatly. I am very glad to be alive. If medical homicide for mental illness had been available, at certain points in my illness trajectory, I would not be here today".

In the interests of bringing attention to this issue generally, and to the support of Bill C-218 in particular, we are more than happy to open our pages to the frank exchange of viewpoints which public understanding ultimately requires.

Please make time to follow, share, and eventually comment on this Special Series, underscoring the pivotal issue of medical homicide for mental illness, which is (or soon will be) a priority for concerned citizens, all around the world.

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill 218.

Will assisted suicide / organ harvesting come to the US?

This article was published by National Review online on January 3, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Once someone is considered killable or supported in suicide, they may become objectified so as to be used instrumentally. Such is the case with people requesting to be euthanized. The idea is that they are going to die anyway, want to die–even as they do not receive suicide prevention — so we might as well get good use out of them such as by conjoining their hastened deaths with organ harvesting.

This abandonment (in my view) is rife in Canada, where in Ontario, a patient approved for a lethal jab will soon receive a call from the organ procurement society asking for their organs. The Netherlands and Belgium also permit conjoining organ harvesting — including of mentally ill patients — with euthanasia.

But that conjoining has not reached the U.S. because no states (yet) allow lethal injection. Still, the assisted-suicide movement wants it.

One of its generals, the bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope, has just released a post on his blog urging that ways be found to conjoin organ harvesting with a patient swallowing a lethal overdose — as just occurred in Australia. From his entry:

Only 10-15% of U.S. MAID deaths would even be eligible for donation. And only a subset of those patients would want to die under conditions (e.g., in a hospital) that would permit donation. But at a time where OPOs [organ procurement organizations] are pushing boundaries with DCD [Donation after Circulatory Death] and NRP [Neonatal Resuscitation Program] to maximize numbers, they should investigate how to obtain organs from some of the thousands of annual MAID cases across 14 U.S. jurisdictions.

So, here we go.

What’s wrong with that, Wesley?

Conjoining organ harvesting with assisted suicide or euthanasia gives society a “stake” in sick people being made dead. For advocates of this policy, it doesn’t matter that the donation choice could be the precipitating motive for sick suicidal persons to end their lives, or at least, could influence the timing. If that is what they want, it’s win-win.

Pope’s low percentage statistics are based on assisted suicide being restricted to people diagnosed with a terminal illness. But once we allowed organ donation after assisted suicide of the terminally ill, it would be unlikely to stop there. People who are not dying generally have “better organs,” and so the prospect of garnering even more organs could become a policy justification for expanding eligibility for suicide facilitation to people with chronic illnesses, disabilities, and mental illness, or the reason to switch from self-administration to lethal jabs. After all, once we accept a policy principle, we tend to follow where it leads.

Time will tell if we take the same road, of course. But the question now on the table is whether this instrumental use of suicidal people is what we really want as a society, even if that is what they want. Because if we follow down the path we are currently on, I fear that is what we are going to get.

A year in review. Important stories and articles in 2025.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2025, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition experienced growth in support, in article readership and in success. In 2025 we had 3.66 million blog pageviews on the EPC blog. Americans were our largest audience but readers were world-wide.

 

January is a good time to renew your $30 EPC 2026 Friendship (Friendship Link). You can also renew your friendship by (Paypal Donation Link) or by sending an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca.

In 2026 we are sharing hope especially with our new film - Life Worth Living - being released on January 1 and is now available to be rented or purchased online (film Link).

A year in review: Important stories and articles in 2025.

In January 2025 EPC started a petition campaign demanding a review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practice in response to the many controversial deaths that are linked to Dr Wiebe (Link). Dr Wiebe was also ordered, by a Judge, not to kill an Alberta woman who Dr Wiebe had approved for euthanasia (Link) and Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, stated that she was concerned about euthanasia in Canada (Link).

In January, several assisted suicide bills were introduced in US States including: Delaware, Illinois, and New York. EPC explained that once legal, assisted suicide laws will inevitably expand (Link) and we reported on a Hawaii assisted suicide murder investigation. (Link).

In February 2025, based on the Ontario, Quebec and Alberta data, I predicted that there were approximately 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024. (Link). When Health Canada finally released the 2024 report in November, the report stated that there were 16,499 Canadian euthanasia death (Link).

In February we focused on defeating assisted suicide legalization and expansion bills in US states including: California, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington state, We were also hopeful that Montana would pass a bill prohibiting assisted suicide (Link).

In March 2025 we reported that the Canadian Human Rights Commission were concerned about Canada's euthanasia law (Link) and we reported that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ordered Canada to repeal Track 2 euthanasia and to not expand euthanasia to people with mental illness, children and by advance request (Link 1), (Link 2).

In March we also focused on defeating assisted suicide bills in US states including: Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,  Nevada, New Hampshire, and Oregon. We continued to support the Montana bill.

In March we published several articles concerning the poison cocktails used for assisted suicide and euthanasia (Link 1), (Link 2), (Link 3).

In March we also published articles about the Quebec euthanasia report, the Belgian report and the Netherlands report.

In April 2025 we focused on several key stories including that another Canadian veteran was offered euthanasia (Link) and Canada's Conservative Party promised not to expand the euthanasia law (Link).

In April we also focused on defeating assisted suicide bills in: Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, New York, while the bill to prevent assisted suicide in Montana was defeated.

In April we published articles on a Canadian who was denied surgery but offered euthanasia (Link), about a Netherlands political party who are wanting to extend euthanasia to people with late stage dementia (Link). We also commented on the problem of defining euthanasia and assisted suicide as medical treatment (Link) and Professor Theo Boer urged France to consider the Netherlands experience with euthanasia and reject it (Link).

In May 2025 the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Delta Hospice Society held a press conference in Ottawa (Link). EPC demanded a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law (Link). We also followed the Coroner's inquest into the death of Normand Meunier (Link).

In May we also focused on the New York assisted suicide bill and we continued to challenge the assisted suicide poison cocktails (Link).

In May we also commented on Canada's euthanasia lobby pushing for child euthanasia (Link), and how a Quebec radio host said that assisted suicide was a 'solution' for the mentally ill (Link). We also reported on the debate in Belgium to extend euthanasia to people with dementia (Link).

In June 2025 we focused on improving Roger Foley's care (Link) and we launched a petition urging the hospital to feed Roger Foley (Link). We published articles about the euthanasia clinic that is attached to St Paul's hospital in Vancouver (Link 1) (Link 2) and Bill C-218 was introduced by Tamara Jansen (MP) to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone (Article Link)

In June we also mourned the death of Stephen Mendelsohn (Link). We also wrote about the New York assisted suicide bill, and the assisted suicide lobby court case to force Colorado to provide suicide tourism (Link) and the American Medical Association re-affirming its opposition to assisted suicide (Link). We also launched a petition to the US Food and Drug Administration concerning the assisted suicide poison cocktails (Link) 

In July 2025 we launched our campaign supporting Bill C-218 (Link) and promoted the video by Andrew Lawton (MP) - I got better (Link). We also published personal stories of people who are happy to be alive, in support of Bill C-218 (Story). We also started our Dying With Dignity corporate boycott (Link).

In July, the US Department of Health and Human Services published a study showing abuse of organ donation, with many organ donors not being dead before donation (Link 1) (Link 2).

In August 2025 we published stories of people who are happy to be alive (Link 1) (Link 2) in support of Bill C-218. We also published three articles on the expose titled: Canada is Killing itself (Link 1) (Link 2) (Link 3). We also published an article about an Ontario report on people who refuse treatment who died by euthanasia (Link).

In August we also published an article on how US states have abandoned their assisted suicide "safeguards" (Link), about the increase in New Zealand euthanasia (Link), on the legalization of euthanasia in Uruguay and Slovenia (Link) and we commented on the use of language in the debate (Link).

In September 2025 we published more stories, in support of Bill C-218, of people who are happy to be alive (Link 1) (Link 2) (Link 3) and we continued to promote Bill C-218 (Link). We also published articles on language games (Link) and about the Canadian government funding the euthanasia lobby (Link).

Jennifer Brady - Nova Scotia

In September we also explained that 90,000 Canadians had died by euthanasia since legalization (Link) and Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately dying by euthanasia (Link). We reported on a Nova Scotia woman who was offered euthanasia but denied treatment, but recieved treatment in the US (Link) and we urged Brian Kilmeade to resign from Fox for stating: Just kill the mentally ill (Link).

In October 2025 we published articles about a dementia patient who died by euthanasia after the family made the request (Link), an Ontario mother who was offered euthanasia after being paralysed from a Covid shot (Link), how assisted suicide was offered to a Colorado woman with an eating disorder (Link) and how euthanasia has caused Canadians with disabilities to fear the healthcare system (Link).

In October the Quebec government proposed a new constitution that included a "right" to euthanasia (Link) and we published an article that Veterans Affairs had offered euthanasia to 20 veterans (Link).

In October, we reported that the assisted suicide lobby is promoting suicide tourism (Link) and Illinois had passed their assisted suicide bill (Link).

In November 2025 Health Canada finally released the 2024 euthanasia report indicating that 16,499 Canadians died by euthanasia representing 5.1% of all deaths (Link), the Quebec 2024 euthanasia report indicated that Quebec has the highest euthanasia rate in the world (Link). We also published a guide to supporting Bill C-218 (Link) and a poll showed that the majority of Canadians do not support euthanasia for mental illness (Link) and we published an article explaining that Health Canada regulations require doctors to offer euthanasia (Link).

In November we mourned the death of the great John Kelly (Link) and we launched a campaign to lobby the Illinois Governor to veto the assisted suicide bill (Link) and we reported on a Netherlands euthanasia bill that would eliminate existing legal restrictions (Link).

In November we were also heavily involved with the successful Slovenian referendum campaign. 53.5% of the voters rejected the Slovenian euthanasia law (Link 1) (Link 2).

In December 2025, the first hour of debate for Bill C-218, the bill that would prevent euthanasia for mental illness in Canada, was on December 5. Tamara Jansen (MP) who sponsored the bill spoke in Parliament (Link) and Andrew Lawton (MP) who lived with mental illness also spoke in Parliament (Link). EPC held a Press Conference in support of Bill C-218 (Link), at the Press Conference, Alicia Duncan stated that Canada will remember the lives saved or lost (Link). EPC also released a video titled: No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).

In December the Illinois and New York Governors agreed to sign their assisted suicide bills. Three US states legalized assisted suicide in 2025 (Link). We published the article - the myth of a safe assisted suicide regime (Link) and we learned of a woman who fraudulently died by assisted suicide in Washington state (Link). 

In December we also learned of another Canadian woman who was denied surgery but offered euthanasia and who may be going to the US for treatment (Link). The death lobby also promoted the story of an actress who is seeking euthanasia for mental illness (Link).

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition ended 2025 by celebrating hope, milestones and success (Link) but most of all we offer hope with our new film - Life Worth Living that is now available to be rented or purchased online (Link).

2025 was a year of great victory with great challenges.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

2025 was a year of great success and great challenges for those who oppose killing by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The first success was the growth of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC). The EPCBlog grew significantly in the past year with 3.66 million readers in 2025, not counting the people who read our articles that were republished on other sites.

We allow anyone to republish our articles, as long as they attribute or link to our original article. Our blog articles always contain links to the original articles enabling people who are doing research to find the original articles.

We are pleased with the successful Sloveniana referendum. The Slovenian parliament passed a bill to legalize euthanasia in July 2025. The referendum was a great success with 53.5% rejecting the Slovenian euthanasia law.

We are very pleased with our January 1, 2026 release of the film: Life Worth Living. (Link to the Life Worth Living information).

The film project grew out of our work with the successful Slovenian referendum campaign, as well as our work with partners in Victoria, Australia who were trying to prevent the expansion of their assisted suicide law, and also our promotion of Bill C-218, the bill that is sponsored by Tamara Jansen MP which, if passed, would prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

While working on the film project, we shared footage of interviews concerning Canada’s experience with euthanasia, that was used in the Slovenian referendum campaign.

There were more successes, but there were also significant losses.

Delaware, Illinois and New York all legalized assisted suicide in 2025. This is a significant loss considering that the last state to legalize assisted suicide was New Mexico 5 years earlier. We are concerned that 2026 will lead to more states legalizing assisted suicide.

We are also concerned about the assisted suicide debate in Britain. The assisted suicide bills at Westminster (England and Wales) and at Holyrood (Scotland) will likely both be voted on in 2026.

Canada's experience with euthanasia has changed the debate in many countries. This is good since we don't want them to follow Canada's lead. Nonetheless, many of these jurisdiction believe that they are not Canada, or the Netherlands or Belgium, therefore it will be different for them. Canadians were told the same in 2015/2016.

People miss the fact that people are people and killing is killing.

We opposed to euthanasia because it is literally about killing people. Assisted killing is a bad idea not just because it cannot be contained or it will negatively affect people at a vulnerable time of their life, even though those statements are true.

We oppose assisting a suicide because it is also about killing someone. Assisting a suicide undermines the need that the person is experiencing, where the response should be proper care and suicide prevention.

Based on the nature of the human person, it is never a good idea to give someone, the right in law, to kill people, as euthanasia and assisted suicide laws actually do. Historically, it has never worked out when a society allows one group of people (medical professionals) to kill people, even when it is requested.