Canada's euthanasia lobby wants to force all medical instititions to kill.

"The euthanasia lobby brooks no dissent. They will force every medical institution to provide euthanasia"

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On Monday, June 17, 2024; Dying with Dignity and the family of Sam O'Neill,  launched in a Charter Challenge, in a BC court, claiming that O'Neill's rights were denied when she was denied euthanasia and transferred from St. Paul's Hospital for euthanasia (MAiD).

*The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will apply to intervene in this case. Donations are needed for legal expenses (Donation Link).

Let's be clear. 

This is not a case about a woman who was denied death by euthanasia. Sam O'Neill died by euthanasia after being transferred from St. Paul's.

This is not a case about religiously affiliated medical institutions blocking euthanasia. These institutions have agreed to transfer people who request euthanasia.

This case is about the euthanasia lobby brooking no dissent. They want to force every medical institution to kill by euthanasia.

*The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will apply to intervene in this case. Donations are needed for legal expenses (Donation Link).

This is not the first time that the euthanasia lobby has tried to force St Paul's hospital to provide euthanasia.

St Paul's Hospital Vancouver

In March, 2022 I published an article titled: Canada's euthanasia lobby demands that religious medical facilities kill. The euthanasia lobby were trying to stop transfers of people who request euthanasia by forcing all medical institutions to provide euthanasia.

The Canadian Press reported that:

Dying With Dignity says the service is being restricted because of an agreement that allows facilities covered by the Denominational Health Association to collect taxpayer dollars but refuse to perform services they oppose on religious or moral grounds.

Alex Muir, chair of the Metro Vancouver chapter of Dying With Dignity, says upholding the agreement denies eligible people their constitutionally protected right to access a medically assisted death.

The campaign was not about access to euthanasia (MAiD) but rather it was trying to force St Paul's to provide euthanasia. 

The British Columbia government was already forcing provincially funded medical institutions that were not religiously affiliated to provide euthanasia. In 2021 the Delta Hospice Society was defunded  by the BC Ministry of Health because they refused to kill their patients.

Katie DeRosa reported for The Vancouver Sun on June 23, 2023 that Dying With Dignity and O'Neill's family initiated a campaign to pressure the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to kill their patients by euthanasia. DeRosa reported:

O’Neill’s family and Dying with Dignity Canada say it’s unacceptable that a taxpayer-funded hospital like St. Paul’s — which is getting a $2 billion replacement in 2027 — forces dying patients to leave its facility to get MAID.

Dying with Dignity’s CEO Helen Long told DeRosa:

such policies will remain in place unless there’s a successful court challenge.

Shannon Paterson published a report on CTV news on June 27, 2023 stating:

Daphne Gilbert, a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa, expects a Charter challenge will be filed.

“The Catholic Church does not fund health care, they don’t put money into the health-care system through these institutions. It’s not like this is a shared funding agreement. All of the money is coming from the taxpayers,” said Gilbert.

In December 2023, The BC government responded by expropriating property from Providence Healthcare to build a euthanasia killing centre next to St. Paul's hospital.

The euthanasia lobby wasn't satisfied that the BC government expropriated property to build a euthanasia killing centre. The euthanasia lobby wants all medical institutions to provide euthanasia.

A similar case in Montréal may affect the case in Vancouver. 

St Raphael Palliative Care Home

In June 2023, the Québec National Assembly passed Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care. One of the provisions in Bill 11 created an obligation for all palliative care homes to offer MAID, even religiously affiliated institutions.

In December, 2023 I wrote that St. Raphael Palliative Care Home and Day Centre, that had signed an agreement with the Archdiocese of Montreal and the Québec government guaranteeing that St Raphael's would provide end-of-life care but not provide euthanasia, was being forced by the Quebec government to provide euthanasia.

On February 6, 2024 I reported that the Archdiocese of Montréal launched a lawsuit to prevent the Québec government from forcing St. Raphael Palliative Care Centre to provide euthanasia (MAiD).

This court case is not limited to British Columbia. 

The euthanasia lobby has designed this case as a Charter Challenge, meaning, they plan to bring this case to the Supreme Court of Canada to force every medical institution in Canada to kill their patients.

Webinar: Join Alex Schadenberg - Update on euthanasia and assisted suicide (June 25)

Alex Schadenberg

Join Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for an - Update on euthanasia & assisted suicide.

When: Tuesday June 25, at: 2:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) 

*Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link)

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email with the link for the event.

The webinar update will focus on Canada, the USA and Europe.

The webinar is scheduled for one hour with time for questions and answers.

Disabled People "Choose" Medical Aid In Dying Due To Poverty

I was going through my emails and came upon this excellent article that was published by Sarah Terzo on her substack on May 13, 2024.

Sarah Terzo

By Sarah Terzo

Canada's Medical Aid in Dying law took effect in June 2016. The law allows those with disabilities or chronic illnesses to be killed by a doctor at their request.

Many stories have come out about disabled people "choosing" Medical Aid in Dying, which is really euthanasia, because of poverty or inability to get treatment.

A Charity Worker Speaks Out

As of 2023, over 1.5 million disabled Canadians were living in poverty. Many of them are turning to MAID (Medical Aid in Dying).

Megan Nicholls

Charities that help poor disabled people have noticed the problem. Meghan Nicholls, CEO of the Mississauga Food Bank, said:

We're at the point where clients on these programs are telling us they're considering medically assisted death or suicide because they can't live in grinding poverty anymore.

A client in our Food Bank 2 Home delivery program told one of our staff that they're considering suicide because they're so tired of suffering through poverty. Another client asked if we knew how to apply for MAID (medical assistance in dying) for the same reasons…

When people start telling us they're going to end their life because they can't live in poverty anymore, it's clear that we've failed them.

Delays in Getting Approved for Government Assistance and Being Turned Down

Rose Finlay

One example is 33-year-old Rose Finlay. Last June, Finlay, a paraplegic, requested MAID because she was unable to find personal care support. She had once run her own business, but her condition worsened, and she couldn't pay her support workers.

She applied to the Ontario Disability Support Program but was told it would take at least six to eight months to get approved. Euthanasia would be approved in 90 days.

Finlay said:

It's not what I want. But if I don't receive the support that I need, the outcome is the same … I would like to have other options.

Madeline

A woman named “Madeline" with myalgic encephalomyelitis turned to crowdfunding to pay for the help she needed after being turned down five times for government assistance. She’s facing euthanasia when she runs out of money.

She said:

I found treatments, but I can't afford them … MAID, for me, is not a life and death choice. It's about what kind of death I want when I run out of money.

Sathya Dhara Kovac, 44, died of euthanasia, which she "chose" because the government refused to provide enough care hours. Before she died, she said:

Ultimately it was not a genetic disease that took me out, it was a system … I could have had more time if I had more help.

Her friend Shayla Brantnall said:

She accepted the changes in her body, but without enough support, how could anyone keep going?… You're constantly stressed, you're constantly struggling, like, 'How am I going to get to the bathroom? How am I going to eat food?' That's not really a great quality of life either.

Once again, the cause of her "request" wasn't her disability, but a lack of money for care.

Tracey Thompson suffered from long covid. She couldn't get approved for assistance, which, even if granted, would barely cover her rent and would leave her with nothing for other expenses.

Choosing euthanasia, she said, was "exclusively a financial consideration."

She also said:

I'm very happy to be alive. I still enjoy life. Birds chirping, small things that make up a day are still pleasant to me, they're still enjoyable. I still enjoy my friends.

But with no income, she didn't feel she could survive.

Medical Aid in Dying Due to Lack of Appropriate Housing

Michael Fraser qualified for euthanasia because of liver disease, incontinence, and the inability to walk.

He died because his apartment, which was on the second floor, had become a prison, and he couldn't afford to move anywhere else.

The doctor who killed him, Dr. Navindra Persaud, struggled with the decision.

Persaud said:

Professional standards were met. It's legal, but I do feel guilty. I'm conflicted about it … There were a number of factors that led to Michael's decision, and I think poverty was one of them….

Sometimes poverty is pushing people to MAID who can be helped by other supports. For sure, I think the fact that he had trouble paying his rent made it harder for him to be in this world.

51-year-old 'Sophia' had multiple chemical sensitivities. She did everything she could to get access to safe housing but was turned down and denied it at every turn. So, she died by euthanasia.

Rohini Peris, President of the Environmental Health Association of Québec, said of her case:

This person begged for help for years, two years, wrote everywhere, called everywhere, asking for healthy housing … It's not that she didn't want to live. She couldn't live that way.

Dr. Riina Bray, who treats her condition, said:

It was an easy fix. She just needed to be helped to find a suitable place to live, where there wasn't smoke wafting in through the vents.

Lack of Resources and Poor Quality Care Lead to Medical Aid in Dying

Paraplegic Jacques Comeau was getting in-home care from orderlies that had worked with him for years. But the local health center began sending new orderlies who gave poor care. One orderly left him sitting in his waste. They made mistakes with his procedures, causing him pain.

So, he chose euthanasia.

Adèle Liliane Ngo Mben Nkoth, an accessibility advocate, said about his case:

Everywhere in Quebec, we see this … It's deplorable to see that … we find ourselves in these situations for a country so rich as ours.

Dr Paul Saba

Dr. Paul Saba from Lachine Hospital said:

People are choosing it because they can't get proper housing, can't get affordable housing, can't get food, where they're not getting enough social services, not enough nursing help.

“Falling Through the Cracks”

Jennyfer Hatch appeared in the pro-euthanasia propaganda film "All Is Beauty."

What the makers of the film didn't reveal was that she had said:

… I feel like I'm falling through the cracks so if I'm not able to access health care, am I then able to access death care?' And that's what led me to look into MAID and I applied last year…

From a disability and financial perspective as well, I can't afford the resources that would help improve my quality of life. Because of being locked in financially as well and geographically, it is far easier to let go than keep fighting.

Les Landry

Fraser Health's MAID documentation includes the statement, "There were no other treatment recommendations or interventions that were suitable to the patient's needs or to her financial constraints."

Les Landry's disability benefits ended when he turned 65. His senior benefits weren't enough to cover his medical transportation, prescription coverage, or service dog's care. So, he applied for MAID.

Euthanasia Averted by Generous Donors

Amir Farsoud of Ontario was living in "never-ending agony" from a back injury. But it wasn't pain that drove him to seek euthanasia, but homelessness after the owner sold the house he was renting. He said, "I don't want to die, but I don't want to be homeless more than I don't want to die."

His story has a happy ending. Strangers raised $60,000 for him, allowing him to find a place to live, and he withdrew his application.

31-year-old "Denise", who also had multiple chemical sensitivities, applied for assisted suicide "essentially, because of abject poverty" as she said. But her GoFundMe account brought in enough money for her to get help for her condition.

A Goal of Saving Money?

These are just a handful of examples showing that disabled people are being forced into euthanasia by poverty and lack of services.

But there is some evidence that the law works exactly as it was meant to.

Before Medical Aid in Dying was legalized, the Canadian Medical Association released a report documenting how much money the law would save. Dead people, after all, don't cost the government any more money in healthcare spending or support. An article covering the report stated:

New research suggests medically assisted dying could result in substantial savings across Canada's health-care system.

Doctor-assisted death could reduce annual health-care spending across the country by between $34.7 million and $136.8 million, according to a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday.

Aaron Trachtenberg, one of the report's authors, told CBC News:

In a resource-limited health care system, anytime we roll out a large intervention there has to be a certain amount of planning and preparation and cost has to be a part of that discussion… It's just the reality of working in a system of finite resources.

Arguments about the money that MAID would save were rarely made publicly. Instead, euthanasia supporters relied on claims of 'death with dignity' and 'relieving human suffering.' But reports like this one were available to legislators, and issues of cost were spoken about behind closed doors.

Lies and Denial

How do supporters of Medical Aid in Dying respond to these cases?

Mostly by denying they exist. In response to allegations that disabled people were choosing death because of poverty and lack of housing, Helen Long, CEO of pro-euthanasia group Dying with Dignity said, "This is simply not true and there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support those claims."

No safe way to legalise euthanasia

Kevin Yuill, emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE), wrote an article, published in Spiked on June 18, 2024.

by Kevin Yuill

For the first time in history, both main candidates in a UK General Election are openly in favour of legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia (ASE). Whether Labour or the Conservatives win in July, the Suicide Act 1961 will likely be called into review.

Last week, prime minister Rishi Sunak was asked by reporters at the G7 summit in Italy if he would vote for a change in the law on ‘assisted dying’. He replied: ‘I’m not opposed to it, in principle, and it’s a question of making sure the safeguards are in place and are effective.’

This may be a moot point, given that Sunak is trailing Labour leader Keir Starmer by 20 points in the polls. Besides, Sunak’s position was carefully couched. Rather than giving his full-throated support, he said he is ‘not opposed’. But that didn’t stop Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, from being able to say that, whoever gets in, ‘neither are opposed to reform’ of the UK’s current ban on ASE.

Perhaps the one thing we know about the infamously slippery Starmer is that he has a track record of supporting ASE. In March this year, he said was personally in favour of legalisation and he promised that MPs would get a free vote on it in the next parliament. Still, even he said that any change in the law must be accompanied by ‘safeguards with teeth to protect the vulnerable’ from abuse. These imagined safeguards are certainly doing a lot of heavy lifting. But could they actually work?

Looking at the evidence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the only ‘safeguard’ that really works or lasts is the present law, which prevents ASE entirely. In every country where ASE is legal, the safeguards have fallen rapidly and initially low numbers of assisted deaths have surged.

Just look at the example of Australia, where ASE is largely legalised. Since legislation was passed in 2017, we have heard a constant clamour for more ‘improvements’ in the law, as pro-euthanasia organisation Go Gentle Australia disingenuously phrases it. What this really means is expansions of the current eligibility criteria. Last week, Australian publication the Age complained that, in the state of Victoria, many of the 68 safeguards that had reassured Victorians that ASE would be safe ‘are now obsolete and severely limit access’. The Age insisted that doctors should be allowed to initiate conversations about euthanasia and called for the removal of other ‘unnecessary hurdles’ to ASE. It is not difficult to see how this could lead to vulnerable people being pressured into accepting an assisted death.

Even in the US state of Oregon – which proponents of ASE like to hold up as evidence that safeguards work – the minimum period between a request for an assisted suicide and a patient’s death was reduced from 14 days to 48 hours in 2021.

Everywhere that ASE has been legalised, the eligibility criteria has ended up expanding. As psychiatrists Mark Komrad and Annette Hanson note in the Psychiatric Times this month, ASE legislation begins ‘with the “low-hanging fruit” of end-stage or terminal illness and gradually broadens’ to encompass other non-physical illnesses or conditions.

In Colorado, there have been cases where people have been helped to die because of anorexia. Dutch law similarly allows ASE for a variety of non-physical ailments, extending even to allow the killing last month of a physically healthy 29-year-old who suffered from severe depression. In the Netherlands in 2010, there were two cases of ASE involving psychiatric suffering. In 2023, there were 138, making up 1.5 per cent of the 9,068 euthanasia deaths.

In Canada, ASE was legalised in 2016 under the medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme. This was initially only intended for people whose deaths were ‘reasonably foreseeable’. But a court decision forced the government to expand its criteria effectively to all those with a permanent disability.

Safeguards simply do not work, even when they supposedly have ‘teeth’. When legalised, ASE rapidly turns death into a form of treatment for anyone deemed to be living an ‘inconvenient’ life – from the mentally unwell to the physically disabled.

The only good news is that, after 4 July, there will be a debate both in and outside of parliament. We should use this opportunity to counter the emotional appeals of our political class with the tragic realities of places where ASE is legal. Legalising assisted suicide is not so much a slippery slope as a moral precipice.

Euthanasia lobby and family launch Charter Challenge to force religiously affiliated healthcare institutions to provide euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver

One of the goals of the euthanasia lobby is to force all Canadian medical institutions to provide (MAiD) euthanasia.

In June 2023, the Québec National Assembly passed Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care. One of the provisions in Bill 11 created an obligation for all palliative care homes to offer MAID, even religiously affiliated institutions.

St. Raphael's in Montréal 

In December, 2023 I wrote that St. Raphael Palliative Care Home and Day Centre, that had signed an agreement with the Archdiocese of Montreal and the Québec government guaranteeing that St Raphael's would provide end-of-life care but not provide euthanasia, was being forced by the Quebec government to provide euthanasia.

On February 6, 2024 I reported that the Archdiocese of Montréal launched a lawsuit to prevent the Québec government from forcing St. Raphael Palliative Care Centre to provide euthanasia (MAiD).

On Monday, June 17, 2024; Dying with Dignity and the family of Sam O'Neill, who requested euthanasia at St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver but transferred to another facility to die by euthanasia, launched a Charter Challenge claiming that her rights were denied when she was transferred from St. Paul's Hospital for euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is examining the case and will apply to intervene. Donations are needed for legal expenses (Donation Link)

Ian Holliday reported for CTV News that:

The family of a young woman who was denied Medical Assistance in Dying at St. Paul's Hospital last year is taking the hospital's operators – including the provincial government – to court.

Lawyers for Gaye O'Neill – the mother of Sam O'Neill and administrator of her estate – filed a notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court Monday.

The lawsuit names the provincial health minister, Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care Society as defendants, arguing that their policies regarding MAID violate Sections 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Joining Gaye as plaintiffs are Dr. Jyothi Jayaraman and the advocacy group Dying with Dignity Canada.

This case would set a national precedent. Holliday reports:

The MAID advocacy group Dying with Dignity has assembled a legal team to take on the B.C. government in a case they hope is precedent-setting.

“We argue that health-care facilities are government actors when they are delivering medical care because they are publicly funded, and as a government actor, they are not allowed to show preferential treatment to any one religion over others or over non-religion," said law professor Daphne Gilbert, who is part of the legal team arguing the case.

"And so there is a clear prioritizing at St. Paul's and Providence Healthcare of the Catholic faith, even though staff and patients don’t share that faith. So we are arguing it’s a violation of a patient's freedom of conscience rights."

Let's be clear. This court case will force every religiously affiliated healthcare institution in Canada to provide euthanasia and Sam O'Neill's death is the test case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is examining the case and will apply to intervene. Donations are needed for legal expenses (Donation Link).

This is not the first attempt by the euthanasia lobby to force St Paul's hospital to provide euthanasia.

Katie DeRosa reported for The Vancouver Sun on June 23, 2023 that Dying With Dignity and O'Neill's family initiated a campaign to pressure the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to kill their patients by euthanasia. DeRosa reported:

O’Neill’s family and Dying with Dignity Canada say it’s unacceptable that a taxpayer-funded hospital like St. Paul’s — which is getting a $2 billion replacement in 2027 — forces dying patients to leave its facility to get MAID.

Dying with Dignity’s CEO Helen Long told DeRosa:

such policies will remain in place unless there’s a successful court challenge.

Shannon Paterson published a report on CTV news on June 27, 2023 stating:

Daphne Gilbert, a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa, expects a Charter challenge will be filed.

“The Catholic Church does not fund health care, they don’t put money into the health-care system through these institutions. It’s not like this is a shared funding agreement. All of the money is coming from the taxpayers,” said Gilbert.

In December 2023, The BC government responded by expropriating property from St Paul's and Providence Healthcare to build a euthanasia killing centre next to St. Paul's hospital.

It is not enough for the euthanasia lobby group that the BC government is building a killing centre directly beside St. Paul's hospital. 

The first attempt to force religiously affiliated medical institutions to provide euthanasia was when the euthanasia lobby pressured the Nova Scotia government to order St Martha's Hospital in Antigonish NS to provide euthanasia in 2019. The Nova Scotia government succumbed to the pressure and ordered St Martha's Hospital to provide euthanasia. In the end, the Antigonish Health and Wellness Centre, which is not owned by St Martha's hospital, agreed to provide euthanasia.

The euthanasia lobby is committed to forcing every healthcare facility in Canada to provide euthanasia.

European Court: Assisted Suicide Not a Human Right

This article was published by National Review online on June 13, 2024.

Court rules: There is not right to assisted suicide in Europe (Link).

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Back in 1997, the euthanasia movement tried to gain an assisted-suicide Roe v. Wade. It didn’t work out. The Supreme Court instead ruled in Glucksberg v. Washington 9–0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, which, in a delicious irony, became the primary precedent applied in Dobbs to overturn Roe.

At the same time, the high court also ruled that refusing life-sustaining treatment is not the same thing as suicide in Vacco v. Quill. In other words, “pulling the plug” is allowing nature to take its course and not self-killing.

Now, some 27 years later, the European Court of Human Rights has issued a similar ruling. In a case brought by an ALS patient who wants to die, the court decided instead that countries can outlaw assisted suicide (PAD, physician-assisted death) without violating the human rights of the terminally ill and, moreover, that self-killing is not the same thing as refusing or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment (RWI). From Karsai v. Hungary:

The Court further notes that it has found it justified for Hungary to maintain an absolute ban on assisted suicide, on account, among other aspects, of the risks of abuse involved in the provision of PAD, which may extend beyond those involved in RWI…the potential broader social implications of PAD; the policy choices involved in its provision…; and the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to the States in this respect.

Similar cogent reasons exist under Article 14 for justifying the allegedly different treatment of those terminally ill patients who are dependent on life-sustaining treatment and those patients who are not, and who in consequence cannot hasten their death by refusing such treatment. The Court would note in this connection that, in contrast to the situation with regard to PAD, the majority of the member States allow RWI… Furthermore, as mentioned above, the right to refuse or withdraw consent to interventions in the health field is recognised also in the Oviedo Convention, which, in contrast, does not safeguard any interests with regard to PAD.

The Court therefore considers that the alleged difference in treatment of the aforementioned two groups of terminally ill patients is objectively and reasonably justified.

This is excellent news. But the court did not rule — as Glucksberg did not about states — that countries cannot legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.

This puts the issue squarely in the democratic sphere. Hence, it is up to us to prevent the death agenda’s spread.

Clarifying comments on Delaware assisted suicide bill HB 140.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide has expanded their laws.

On Wednesday, June 12, the Delaware State Senate debated assisted suicide Bill HB 140. The last online presenter was Kim Callinan, the President of the assisted suicide group, Compassion & Choices. In her presentation Callinan lied three times about key issues.

The first lie was that there have been no abuses of the law.

An article by Jennifer Brown that was published in the Colorado Sun on March 14 reported that Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani, an internal medicine doctor who specializes in eating disorders published a paper on how she prescribed assisted suicide for three people with anorexia nervosa in Colorado. Gaudiani approves assisted suicide for Anorexia Nervosa by falsely defining the condition as terminal.

Kevin Dias, the Chief Legal Advocacy Officer for Compassion & Choices  responded to the Colorado Sun article by stating that:

Medical aid-in-dying laws apply only to mentally capable, terminally ill patients with six months or less to live who are able to self-ingest the medication. Any deviation from these requirements violates the law and places physicians, family members and others in regulatory, civil and criminal jeopardy. This law does not and was never intended to apply to a person whose only diagnosis is anorexia nervosa.

Kevin Dias admitted that the law was violated. To make matters worse, the Oregon 2021 assisted suicide report listed Anorexia Nervosa as a reason for at least one assisted suicide death.

Therefore the law had been violated at least 4 times on this issue alone.

The second lie is her statement there is no "slippery slope."

Oregon: In 2019 Oregon expanded their assisted suicide law by giving doctors the ability to waive the 15 day waiting period when a person was deemed near to death. In 2023 Oregon removed the residency requirement extending assisted suicide nationally to anyone.

California: In 2021 California expanded their assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours, it forced doctors who oppose assisted suicide to be complicit in the process (later struck down by the court).

New Mexico: In 2021 New Mexico passed assisted suicide Bill HB 47 further codifying the assisted suicide lobby's expansion plans. HB 47 did not require a 15 day waiting period but it rather required a 48 hour waiting period that can be waived if the health care provider believes that the person may be near to death, technically allowing a same day death.

New Mexico also passed an expanded definition of who could prescribe and participate in assisted suicide. HB 47 allowed non-physicians defined as "health care providers" to approve and prescribe lethal drugs. "Health care providers" includes physicians, licensed physician assistants, osteopathic physicians, or nurses registered in advanced practice. The assisted suicide lobby is expanding who can prescribe and participate since very few physicians are willing to assist a suicide.

Vermont: In 2022 Vermont expanded their assisted suicide law by removing the 48 hour waiting period, (allowing a same day death), removing the requirement that an examination be done in person, (allowing approvals by telehealth), and it extended legal immunity to anyone who participates in the act. 

In 2023Vermont expanded their assisted suicide law by removing the residency requirement expanding assisted suicide nationally by allowing anyone to die by assisted suicide in Vermont.

Washington State: In 2023 Washington State expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, by reducing the waiting period to 7 days and to force healthcare institutions and hospices to post their assisted suicide policies.

Hawaii: In 2023 Hawaii expanded their assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 20 days to 5 days, by allowing the waiting period to be waived if the person is near to death and by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison.

Colorado: On June 5, Colorado Governor Gary Polis signed Senate Bill 24-068 to expand their State assisted suicide law.

Senate Bill 24-068 expanded the Colorado assisted suicide law by: allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 7 days, allowing the doctor or advanced practise registered nurse to waive the waiting period if the person is near to death, Adding language specifying that if any end-of-life options conflict with requirements to receive federal money, the conflicting part is inoperative and the remainder of the law will continue to operate.

New Jersey. There is currently a lawsuit by the assisted suicide lobby challenging the New Jersey state residency requirement for assisted suicide.

Even if Callinan considers these expansions of assisted suicide to be only legal "updates" (which doesn't explain the removal of the residency requirements in Oregon and Vermont), this year's attempted expansion of assisted suicide in California (SB 1196) to include euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill is clearly proof of a slippery slope. 

The only reason Compassion and Choices opposed the California SB 1196 is that passing the bill would have made it more difficult to pass assisted suicide legislation in other states, such as Delaware.

The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to legalize assisted suicide in more states and to expand the scope of the assisted suicide laws in the states that have legalized assisted suicide.

The third Callinan lie was stating that all of the laws are similar to the Oregon law. 

I have no love for the Oregon law, but clearly most state assisted suicide laws have similarities and differences to the Oregon law.

For instance, Oregon only allows physicians to participate in assisted suicide. Several states have redefined who can participate as being a "Health care provider" which includes doctors of osteopathy, advanced registered nurses, and physician assistants.

Another significant difference is the waiting periods. Oregon originally required 15 days, but later allowed the waiting period to be waived if a person is nearing death. Some states permit a 48 hour waiting period that can also be waived and some assisted suicide bills have had no waiting period.

As stated earlier, Vermont allows the physician to examine the person by telehealth and some jurisdictions allow the lethal poison to be sent to the person by mail/courier.

Clearly the laws differ in the states where it has been legalized.

More articles on this topic:

• The widening scope of assisted suicide in the US (Link).
• Nearly every US state that has legalized assisted suicide has expanded its law (Link).

Father of Calgary Autistic woman, who was seeking euthanasia, has withdrawn his appeal.

M.V. has refused food and fluid for 16 days.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The father of the Calgary autistic woman, who was scheduled to die by euthanasia on February 1, withdrew his appeal of a court decision that prevented his daughter from dying by euthanasia, because the case is essentially moot.

Meghan Grant reported for CBC news that:

A Calgary father fighting through the courts to keep his 27-year-old daughter from accessing medical assistance in dying (MAID) has abandoned his appeal, 14 days after she stopped eating and drinking.

The woman, who can only be identified as M.V. because of a publication ban, was set to receive MAID in February. Her father — W.V. — does not believe his daughter has any medical conditions that would qualify her for MAID and wanted the courts to review how she was approved. 

M.V., whose only publicly known diagnoses are autism and ADHD, has never disclosed in court the conditions she suffers from which led to her approval. 

At the end of May, M.V. began starving herself because a judge's order blocks her access to MAID until appeal arguments — originally set to take place in October — can be heard.

M.V. stopped eating and drinking on May 28. Normally someone dies by dehydration in 10 - 14 days after refusing food and fluids. W.V. dropped the appeal on Day 15 because the court case had become essentially moot. Grant reports:

Last week, after learning of M.V.'s voluntary stoppage of eating and drinking (VSED), Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jolaine Antonio expedited the case to be heard on June 24.

But on Tuesday, W.V. filed a discontinuance of appeal.

Although no reasons were given in the document, a partially redacted letter from W.V.'s lawyer filed with the court last week alerts the court to the possibility that the appeal would be discontinued.

"We have asked counsel for the respondents, M.V. and [Alberta Health Services] for additional information or clarity on these circumstances but no information has been forthcoming prior to 3:00 p.m. today," wrote W.V.'s lawyer Sarah Miller.

In the letter, the lawyer says that a discontinuance would be filed if the question of an injunction becomes moot.

That could suggest that if M.V. continued her current course of action, the appeal would become unnecessary. 

Grant reported that the father opposed the euthanasia death of his autistic daughter because:

M.V.'s father believes his daughter is generally healthy, and his lawyer previously argued in court that any physical symptoms she presents are a result of psychological conditions. 

The daughter's only known diagnoses are autism and ADHD, but those conditions do not qualify her for MAID.

This case is very important to me (Alex Schadenberg) since I have an autistic son who is a similar age. I believe that MV, who is otherwise healthy, was only approved for euthanasia because she is autistic. This is clearly a form disability discrimination.

M.V. was originally scheduled to die by euthanasia (MAiD) on February 1, but her father obtained a temporary injunction, on January 30, 2024, preventing her death.

CBC News reported on March 12, 2024 on this case that the father argued that his daughter did not have a medical condition that qualifies under the law for death by lethal poison (MAiD) and yet the daughter had already been approved to be killed.

CBC News reporter, Meghan Grant reported on March 25, 2024 that Justice Feasby ruled that the 27-year-old daughter can die by euthanasia despite her father's concerns. Feasby withdrew the temporary injunction that prevented M.V. from dying by euthanasia but Feasby maintained a 30 day stay of the injunction, which gave the father time to appeal the decision.

Justice Feasby ordered an assessment of the role of Alberta Health Services with relation to the approval of euthanasia for the autistic daughter.

On April 2, 2024, Kevin Martin reported for the Calgary Herald that the father of the 27-year-old autistic woman appealed the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 8, Justice Anne Kirker ordered a stay on the injunction to prevent the death of the M.V. until after the appeal is decided. The date of the appeal was in October.

On May 30, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) announced that we were granted intervener standing in the case. EPC submitted it's application to intervene, with legal arguments, on May 17.

Those who advised M.V. to stop eating and drinking used her for their own political and social purposes. I am incredibly saddened by the outcome of this case.

Court rules: There is no right to assisted suicide in Europe.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The European Court of Human Rights ruled (6 to 1) that under human rights law, there is no right to assisted suicide in Europe. 

The Irish Legal News reported on June 13 that:

Dániel Karsai, a prominent human rights lawyer in Budapest, Hungary, unsuccessfully argued that the criminalisation of physician-assisted dying (PAD) violated his rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Karsai was challenging the Hungarian law prohibiting assisted suicide at the European Court of Human Rights. The Irish Legal News reported:

Under Hungarian law, anyone assisting him would risk prosecution, even if he died in a country which allows physician-assisted dying. He complained to the ECtHR of not being able to end his life with the help of others and of discrimination compared to terminally ill patients on life-sustaining treatment who are able to ask for their treatment to be withdrawn.

In today’s Chamber judgment, the court observed that there were potentially broad social implications and risks of error and abuse involved in the provision of physician-assisted dying.

The Court found that proper end-of-life care provides a dignified death and that withdrawal of treatment is different than assisting someone to die. The Irish Legal News reported:

The court considered that high-quality palliative care, including access to effective pain management, was essential to ensuring a dignified end of life.

According to the expert evidence heard by the court, the available options in palliative care, including the use of palliative sedation, were generally able to provide relief to patients in the applicant’s situation and allow them to die peacefully. Mr Karsai had not alleged that such care would be unavailable to him.

As regards the alleged discrimination, the court found that the refusal or withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life situations was intrinsically linked to the right to free and informed consent, rather than to a right to be helped to die.

This is widely recognised and endorsed by the medical profession, and also laid down in the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention. Furthermore, refusal or withdrawal of life-support was allowed by the majority of the member states. The court therefore considered that the alleged difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified.

Jean-Paul Van De Walle at
European Court of Human Rights

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, stated in their media release that:

In its decision, the Court affirmed that prohibition of assisted suicide is in line with the country’s obligations under international law to protect life. Additionally, as the court pointed out, “the majority of the Council of Europe’s member States continue to prohibit” euthanasia and related practices (§ 165).

“We applaud today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds Hungary’s essential human rights protections. Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition and support his right to receive the best care and relief possible, it is clear from other jurisdictions that a right to die quickly becomes a duty to die. Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care,” said Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International.

ADF explained how legalizing assisted suicide leads to abuses of the law.

“Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented and the same must apply to assisted suicide. Care, not killing must be the goal we all strive towards,” Van De Walle explained.

ADF explained that the court ruled that refusal and withdrawal of treatment is different than assisting a suicide.

As regards the alleged discrimination, the court found that the refusal or withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life situations was intrinsically linked to the right to free and informed consent, rather than to a right to be helped to die.

This is widely recognised and endorsed by the medical profession, and also laid down in the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention. Furthermore, refusal or withdrawal of life-support was allowed by the majority of the member states. The court therefore considered that the alleged difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified.

More articles on this topic:

• Hungary opposes assisted suicide (Link).
• Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court (Link).

Canadian doctor says assisted dying law is being used by more people than anticipated

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Canadian Dr Ramona Coelho told Manx radio in the Isle of Man that Canada's euthanasia legislation is being used more often than people anticipated.

Manx radio reported that:

A Canadian doctor has claimed that the assisted dying law, passed in her country, is being used by more people than anticipated despite it being hailed as an ‘exceptional’ procedure.

Dr Ramona Coelho, spoke to some members of the House of Keys yesterday (11 June) whilst MHKs were considering the clauses of the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill.

She’s told Manx Radio there were 13,000 assisted deaths in 2022 and around 16,000 last year.

Dr Coelho says she’s concerned about how the law impacts the most marginalised of people.

Coelho is a family physician whose practise focuses on marginalized Canadians.

Previous articles concerning Dr Ramona Coelho

Isle of Man amends euthanasia bill to require self-administration

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes both euthanasia and assisted suicide because both are methods of killing people. Euthanasia requires the doctor, or some other person, to administer the lethal poison, while assisted suicide requires the person to self-administer the lethal poison that has been prescribed by a doctor or other person.

Whether the person self-administers or the doctor, or some other person administers the lethal person, both acts require the direct involvement of another person to carry out the death.

Nonetheless, the latest Isle of Man euthanasia debate led to an amendment to the proposal to remove the option of euthanasia, while leaving assisted suicide within the law. Ashlea Tracey reported for BBC that:

Terminally ill residents would have to self administer an approved substance to end their lives under proposed new assisted-dying laws on the Isle of Man.

Politicians discussed aspects of the legislation including how medicines would be prescribed, delivered and administered at the latest sitting of the House of Keys.

The original wording of the Assisted Dying Bill 2023, a private members bill brought forward by Alex Allinson MHK, included the option of requesting the help of a doctor.

However, members backed amendments by Julie Edge MHK and Julie Edge MHK to remove that choice from the proposed new laws.

Ms Corlett argued the "last action should be taken by the person" who wanted to end their own life.

In response, Dr Allinson said while a "large number" of responses to a public consultation agreed physicians should be able to administer the substance but he conceded "there had been clear evidence given to us that perhaps this was a line too far".

Allinson's goal is to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide. Allinson knows that it is harder to legalize assisted dying than to expand the law once it is legal.

For instance, Canada's legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016. The original law included a "terminal illness" requirement in the law. Canada expanded their law in 2021 by removing the "terminal illness" requirement, removing the 10-day waiting period for terminally ill people (allowing a same-day death), removing the requirement that the person be competent when the lethal poison is administered and permitting euthanasia for mental illness alone.

In the US, 10 States have legalized assisted suicide and nearly all of those states have expanded their assisted suicide laws since legalization.

People who oppose euthanasia must never "cut a deal" to support a bill that permits poisoning people by assisted suicide, but not euthanasia. Once the bill is legalized, within a few years, the kill bill will be expanded.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes the poisoning of people to death by doctors administering euthanasia or doctors prescribing assisted suicide.

Euthanasia proposal dies when France calls election.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex speaking at the European Parliament

I rarely provide political commentary, but elections have consequences.

The European Parliament held their elections from June 6 to June 9, 2024 resulting in a shift in the balance of power. It appears that the European Parliament will likely have more of a  conservative focus over the next few years.

In response to the European election results and the shift in european politics, French President, Emmanuel Macron, on June 10 called a snap election with his hope of catching conservative political parties off-guard. The election will be on June 29 - 30 and the second tier on July 6 - 7.

For those who oppose euthanasia, France's euthanasia proposal has technically died with the snap election. After the election the euthanasia proposal will need to be re-introduced. If Macron loses support, it is unlikely that the euthanasia proposal will immediately return.

A similar situation exists in the UK where Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called a snap election for July 4. The difference is that Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, is leading in the polls and Starmer has promised that if elected his party would legalize assisted suicide.

Clearly elections have consequences.

As I reported on June 11, as part of the European Union election there was a Slovenian referendum on the question ‘Are you in favour of adopting a law that will regulate the right to assistance in the voluntary end of life?’ that passed with 55% in favour and 45% against. The vote is non-binding, but has support from three political parties who proposed the referendum.

Euthanasia has become a significant political issue.

The only "good" that is coming from Canada's disasterous euthanasia law is that it is a warning to the rest of the world not to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.