Canada is not better than the United States

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

With the exception of those who have blithely stated their intention to kill members of a marginalized group because they are members of that group, such as people like Peter Singer, Thaddeus Mason Pope, Christopher Riddle and some other “MAiD” supporters, and members of hate groups like the KKK, I don’t choose my friends and associates based on ideology. I have friends and family from all over the political spectrum that have been good to me. I also think it is imperative that people from all over the political spectrum unite to correct the serious problems that disabled people face, sort of like people might unite if someone’s house were on fire.

So, I don’t generally comment on political candidates or parties. But there have been a lot of policies being proposed or implemented lately that my experience indicates would be very bad for disabled people. I feel like my role as a disability justice advocate requires me to comment on these policies. So, I have had to talk about politics a little bit. In that vein, this post is intended as a disability justice response to Americans who are currently thinking that Canada might be a nice place to live.

In my opinion there are some really, really bad policies being implemented in the United States right now; I discuss what I think are destructive disability rights policies at length in my “Opposition to Recent/Proposed Disability Policy Changes Is Not “Hysteria” post. 

In my experience, ableism is not unique to this administration or to the Republican Party, but from my perspective it’s as though this administration got a list of almost every ableist thing it could possibly do and shouted, “Leeroy Jenkins!” And, Conservative-identitying members of this administration are the ones leading efforts to implement the aforementioned policies, so it’s justifiable for people to talk about ableist and/or generally prejudiced conservative policies and ideas.

Nevertheless, it bothers me to see many Americans, especially Americans who identify as politically progressive, holding up comparatively leftist Canada as a place to move to and extolling the wisdom of its leaders. Although I believe that many of the policies that this administration has championed are unethical and prejudiced, Canada is also implementing unethical and prejudiced policies; it is NOT any better than the United States, at least not for people with disabilities.

If one compares the disability policies that this administration has implemented to Canada’s, there are disturbing parallels. For instance, President Trump signed an executive order making it easier to institutionalize people with severe mental illnesses like I have experienced. This is horrible, but did Canada not do the same thing when it passed the More Beds Better Care Act, which allows health authorities to forcibly transfer disabled and elderly people to institutions far away from their families? The prevailing worldview among members of the mainstream disability studies/advocacy communities that I interact with is that this administration’s policies have made America’s issues with systemic racism worse, but did Canada’s government not ignore the majority of its indigenous community that asserted that Canada’s healthcare system was rife with systemic racism and “Track 2 MAiD” would make that worse? I’ve observed some disabled friends who identify as LGBT talking about moving to Canada, and although I can’t speak to their experiences, I worry that Canada would not be a better environment for them, given that Canada is aggressively suggesting “MAiD” to disabled people who identify with any gender or sexual orientation. People from across my Facebook feed are expressing concern that this administration has implemented policies that seem designed to impose its worldview on everyone, but has Canada’s government not shut down hospices that decline to participate in “MAiD”? I know from personal experience that America’s policies often further systemic ableism, but at least we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990. Canada passed “ADA lite” legislation in 2019, and has set a goal of the law being fully implemented in 2040. Current Prime Minister Carney didn’t even bother to appoint a disability justice minister and is continuing Trudeau’s pattern of starving and killing people with disabilities. Is that the world that Canada’s admirers want for Americans with disabilities?

As I’ve noted, it seems that people who admire Canada the most tend to identify as political progressives. Unfortunately, Canada’s current Center-Left government has taken ableism to a lethal extreme, and in my experience USA citizens from that political contingent have not collectively earned the disabled community’s trust either.

For instance, one of the most aggressively ableist progressive-identifying people I have ever met, the guidance counselor who attempted to force me to drop out of high school because I was a Special Education student, posted on the public part of his Facebook page:

“I just listened to Prime Minister Trudeau’s speech on Canada’s response to Trump’s tariffs. He would, if Trump follows through, concomitantly place tariffs on U.S. goods. He spoke like a true, sensible and sane leader. I was proud for the Canadian people and shame for our country’s leadership…It seems that if more people who typically vote democratic did not sit it out in 2024 things might have been different. But we must move on.”

No. Prime Minister Trudeau was not a “true, sensible” leader. He helped create a world where disabled people are starving and killing themselves. It scares and offends me to observe people like that guidance counselor praising Trudeau as a “true, sensible leader;” I think that’s a sign that Canada is correctly controlled by people like that guidance counselor: people who virtue signal about how progressive they are while treating disabled people of all backgrounds like garbage.

With regard to how attitudes toward Canada intersect with the right to die debate, the attitudes of mainstream US “MAiD” leaders toward Canada are concerning. As noted, Compassion and Choices leaders Kevin Diaz and Bernadette Nunley’s article on the differences between US and Canadian “MAiD” laws declined to criticize Canada’s approach. Also, I don’t mean to be creepy, but I noticed that Compassion and Choices National Campaign Director Tim Appleton posted this comment about Justin Trudeau on his BlueSky account:

“After watching this, I cannot imagine #JustinTrudeau leaving the world stage. Canada, America, and the world need him, now more than ever.”

The fact that Tim thinks that Canada, America and the world needs Justin Trudeau, even after Trudeau allowed policies that lead to disabled people starving, being homeless and dying early deaths strikes me as indicating that the American “MAiD” movement’s outreach to people with disabilities is largely performative.

Tim also posted a quote from Canadian Prime Minister Carney asserting that this administration’s tariffs were an indication that the 80 year period in which the United States “formed alliances rooted in mutual trust and respect” was over. I agree that this administration’s tariffs are ridiculous, but Carney has no right to lecture anyone about “trust and respect.” His party gives disabled people no reason to afford his government any level of trust and Carney treats his disabled citizens with extreme disrespect. Tim might respond that his posts aren’t meant to communicate agreement with everything Canada does, but Canada’s leaders have created an environment where disabled people are starving and killing themselves. Compassion and Choices likes to frame itself as part of the political left, but praising such a country doesn’t seem very progressive or responsible to me. Would C&C’s leaders praise Vladimir Putin? Or apartheid South Africa? By equivocating about and praising Canada, C&C’s leaders are reinforcing the message that its disability policies aren’t contemptible and that it would be acceptable for America to copy them.

My perspective that Canada is not better than the United States is not unique. When Canada was passing Bill C-7 to expand “MAiD” to people with disabilities, a disabled Canadian X user named Tweedy Mutant posted:

“Let me talk to Americans for a second about #KillBillC7. Look, I grew up in the US, so I know that Canada holds a special place in the hearts of US leftists, but the Canada that people threaten to move to every election and the ACTUAL country of Canada are different places. In cases of discrimination, the ACTUAL country of Canada offers completely inadequate "protection" through a slow and retraumatizing Human Rights Tribunal process riddled with barriers that disproportionately impact disabled ppl, making it an ineffectual option for redress.

Oh and the threat to move to Canada the next time the GOP takes the White House? Good luck if you're disabled. In the ACTUAL country of Canada, would-be immigrants can be denied on the grounds of disability. Furthermore, the ACTUAL country of Canada does not provide disabled ppl with adequate supports to live -- and instead of ensuring better quality-of-life, Parliament passed Bill C7, which removes important safeguards on medical assistance in dying.

The ACTUAL country of Canada has a long history of institutionalization and sterilization. The ACTUAL country of Canada passed a toothless version of the ADA (the ACA) 19 years AFTER the US. (Do the math: we got our "ADA lite" in 2019!)”

Disabled Canadian X user Sarah Colero stated:

“The treatment of developmentally disabled folks by the United States does not take away from the active disabled eugenics in Canada in which the UN CRPD called out earlier this year. You can maplewash all you want, Canada is actively killing disabled folks including Autistics.”

American disability justice leader Imani Barbarin responded to a post from a Canadian expressing derision for the USA’s current policies by asserting: 

“Your healthcare system has been essentially euthanizing disabled people en masse.”

Indeed. As a disabled person, Canada doesn’t sound like a place that I would want to live.

Disabled people in the United States do not need leaders like Canada’s in charge of our lives. We need people from across the political spectrum to listen to us and create policies that help us thrive, not make us so oppressed that we die.

Québec Constitutional Bill 2025 would create a "right to be killed"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Québec National Assembly, on October 9, 2025; has proposed a bill to change the Québec constitution with - The Québec Constitional Bill 2025. The purpose of the bill is to "protect" Québec's identity as a secular society.

The Québec Constitutional Bill 2025 would also create "right to be killed"

An article by François Carabin and Marco Bélair-Cirino that was published by Le Devoir on October 9 stated:

The Bill amends the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to "protect the right of Quebecers to die with dignity and to receive medical assistance in dying when their condition requires it."

The Le Devoir article further stated:

Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette presented his draft "Quebec Constitutional Act, 2025" to the National Assembly. This "law of all laws"—which, in his view, would have "primacy over any incompatible rule of law"—would reinforce the "fundamental values" of the "beautiful nation" of Quebec, starting with gender equality.

The Québec government is proposing to change its constitution to ensure that the cultural changes in Québec cannot be changed. The article states:

To achieve this, he also proposes amending the "Provincial Constitution" section of the Constitutional Act of Canada, 1867, to add "three new provisions on the fundamental characteristics of Quebec, namely the secularism of the State, the model of integration into the Quebec nation and the civil law tradition" to the one added in 2022, "French is the only official language of Quebec [and] the common language of the Quebec nation."

The Québec Constitution Bill 2025 is likely unconstitutional and is incredibly dangerous as it would create a constitutional right to kill.

People Magazine article sells couple assisted suicide death porn.

Their daughter was constantly on the phone, speaking to hospice coordinators and doctors trying to get her dad qualified for hospice and MAID.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An exclusive article written by Vanessa Etienne and published by People Magazine on October 8, 2025 reads like an assisted suicide lobby article that was paid for to sell couple suicide by making a couple killing part of a "love" story. This story feels like death porn.

Further to that the death story features a daughter who becomes intimately involved with arranging the assisted suicide deaths of her parents. From the article:

Corinne Gregory Sharpe always had a strong relationship with her parents, Eva and Druse Neumann. “We all were close and tight-knit,” the private professional chef from Port Ludlow, Washington, says. But in 2021, she helped both of them end their own lives with medical aid in dying — a journey she calls a “painful paradox.”

Now, four years after their deaths, the 61-year-old is opening up exclusively to PEOPLE about their last moments together and why she advocated for them to die on their own terms.

Eva and Druse Newmann died by assisted suicide in Washington state, where assisted suicide was legalized in 2009 after the law passed in a state voter initiative.

The story suggests that Eva qualified for assisted suicide but Druse didn't want to be left-alone after her death. From the article:

Meanwhile, Eva’s decision to die left Druse distraught. “I had a very interesting, serious heart-to-heart conversation with him one evening after my mom had gone to bed,” Corinne shares. “And he was just panicked like, ‘What happens to me if she goes first?’ That's always been a concern of his. He couldn't see a scenario where he would want to continue if mom was gone.”

“He's always been afraid of dying. But I think he was more afraid of being left alone,” she explains. “He was like, ‘Well, if she's gonna go and I have the option to go at the same time, then I'm getting on that horse.’ So I was like, look, we'll figure something out.”

In other words, Eva seems to qualify, under the law, to die by assisted suicide but Druse did not. So Corinne made it her goal to get Druse to qualify to be killed. The story states:

From that point, Corinne was constantly on the phone, speaking to hospice coordinators and doctors trying to get her dad qualified for hospice and MAID. She admits it was “surreal” to be essentially advocating for her own father’s death. By mid-June, Druse was successfully qualified based on his history of mini-strokes.

Corinne says it was “a race” to get her dad qualified, and the justification from doctors came down to the strong possibility of her father suffering a stroke that wouldn’t kill him, but would leave him incapacitated.

After receiving the lethal poison for her parents, Corinne suggests that the death occur on Friday, August 13, 2021 as part of a "wicked" death.

People Magazine may have received money from the assisted suicide lobby for Vanessa Etienne to write this quircky and dangerous article promoting couple assisted suicide.

This article shows you just how bad the assisted suicide lobby has become. The reality is that this article provides enough information to open an investigation into the deaths of Eva and Druse Neumann.

Even considering the lack of oversight of the Washington State assisted suicide law, it is questionable, at best, that Druse actually qualified for assisted suicide. This story suggests that Corinne went out of her way to arrange her father's death.

I really hope that authorities in Washington State will investigate these deaths.

• Previous articles about this topic (Articles Link).

Euthanasia (MAiD) - Compassion or Neglect?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Euthanasia is abandonment.

The Toronto Star, one of Canada's most liberal newspapers, published an opinion article by Andrew Phillips on October 7 titled: What’s behind these MAID decisions — compassion or neglect?

Phillips, a Toronto Star staff columnist, examines some of the stories from the recent reports from the Ontario Coroners committee that examines the (MAiD) euthanasia reports in Ontario. Philips writes:

Should our public health care system end the life of a man who requests an assisted death mainly because he’s distraught and lonely following the death of his wife? Or a woman who is morbidly obese, refuses all treatment and says she’s lost the will to live?

What about an elderly woman who’s suffering from dementia, whose request to die is brought forward by a family member, and whose final consent for assisted dying involves “squeezing the provider’s hand?” Or a man in his 80s, also diagnosed with dementia, who has been assessed for medical assistance in dying (MAID) while suffering from delirium?

All these cases are included in two recent reports from the MAID Death Review Committee released by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. Together they raise troubling questions about the decision-making that goes into approving some of the deaths under Canada’s system of assisted dying.

The first report is the review committee’s look at MAID deaths in Ontario during 2024. It addresses the case of a man in his 70s identified as “Mr. C,” who had an essential tremor, a condition that caused his hands to shake.

He was grieving the death of his wife and the tremor “impacted his esteem and self-confidence.” According to the report he “had not been able to create a new life path with meaningful relationships and a sense of purpose … He requested to access MAID due to same.” Some members of the committee worried that his request for MAID “appeared to be primarily motivated by social withdrawal, grief and hopelessness.”

Then there’s Mrs. A, the morbidly obese woman who refused treatment. MAID assessors said her condition could improve with treatment, but they decided her death was “reasonably foreseeable” because she would not accept it and approved her for an assisted death.

Is that compassion, or neglect?

The second report focuses on the 103 people in Ontario who accessed MAID in 2023-24 while suffering from dementia.

The most troubling case is that of “Mrs. 6F,” a woman in her 80s admitted to hospital with “moderately advanced dementia.” A family member told her care team that the woman had expressed a “wish to die,” but after discussions with a MAID provider she decided to move into long-term care.

Four months later a family member again initiated a request for MAID on her behalf. According to the report, Mrs. 6F was assessed by a MAID provider in the presence of a family member. She attempted to sign the consent form but her signature was illegible. A “third-party signer” was engaged to do it for her.

On the day of the procedure, “final express consent was determined based on Mrs. 6F’s ability to repeat the consent question and via squeezing the provider’s hand.”

Some members of the death review committee were clearly troubled by all this. Did Mrs. 6F fully realize what was going on? Was her final consent to her own death properly obtained? Was there family pressure for her to agree to MAID?

In the case of “Mr. 6D,” the man in his 80s who was assessed for MAID while suffering from delirium brought on by an abdominal infection, some committee members raised the obvious question. Can informed consent truly be obtained while someone is in the midst of an acute health situation? “These members noted that Mr. 6D’s decision-making may have been influence by potentially reversible functional impairments associated with his delirium.”

The language is impersonal and detached but behind it is a very real concern among some professionals who are very familiar with the system that something is going quite wrong.

It’s true that the great majority (95.9 per cent) of MAID cases involve people whose deaths are “reasonably foreseeable” and who are suffering from terminal conditions, mainly cancer. Cases like those of Mr. C and Mrs. 6F are comparatively few and far between — which is precisely why the review committee took such a close look at them.

But given the stakes involved — literally life and death — every case is vital.

If the public health system we all have a stake in is killing people because they’re just lonely or troubled, that’s something we should all care about. And if even a few people are being ushered out when there are real questions about whether they’ve fully agreed to what’s happening, that’s even worse.

It’s not just about their “choice.” It’s about what kind of system we’ve all chosen.

It is good that Phillips is honest and calls it killing, because that is what it is. 

Phillips should not feel so sure that the 95.9% of the MAiD deaths that are based on a terminally ill person who are "suffering" are not problematic. Even the case of the woman who was obese and refused treatment was classified as one of the 95.9% since she was classified as having a death that was reasonably forseeable.

Nonetheless, Phillips and the Toronto Star have done a great service to truth by publishing this article that outlines some of the outcomes of legalizing medicalized killing.

Links to more articles on this topic:

• How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link). 
• Euthanasia for Canadians who are not terminally ill (Link). 
• Canadian with dementia euthanized at family's request (Link). 
• Dementia patient died by euthanasia, Family made the request (Link). 
• There were around 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024 (Link).

Queensland Australia: Huge increases in assisted deaths.

The Australian Care Alliance updated it's euthanasia fact page on the state of Queensland after the release of the recent report indicating that there were 1072 assisted deaths in Queensland from July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2025 which was up from 793 over the previous year. 

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in Queensland from 1 January 2023 under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021.

Numbers

A report on the first six months of legalisation stated that there were 245 deaths under the Act - 139 deaths (56.73%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 106 by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide. This represented about 1.32% of all deaths - higher than WA after one year and twice Victoria's rate after 4 years.

A second report, covering 1 July 2023-30 June 2024 stated that there were 793 deaths under the Act - 532 deaths (67%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 261 (33%) by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide. This represented about 2.05 % of all deaths in 2023-24 – a 45% increase on the rate for the first six months of operation.

The 2024-25 annual report reported a total of 1072 deaths under the Act with 779 (72.67%) by euthanasia and 293 (27.33%) by assistance to suicide. This represents 2.84% of all deaths – an increase of 38.5% on the 2023-24 rate.

Queensland also produces quarterly reports which show a continued steady increase in the rate of euthanasia and assistance to suicide.

The quarterly report covering 1 July 2024-30 September 2024 stated that there were 241 deaths under the Act – representing 2.34% of all deaths in Queensland in that period, a 26% increase on the rate for 2023-24.

There were a further 264 deaths from 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2024 – 2.69% of all deaths; a further 273 between 1 January 2025 and 31 March 2025 (2.82% of all deaths), with 75% of these deaths by euthanasia and 25% by self-administration; and a further 288 deaths between 1 April 2025 and 30 June 2025.

So by April-June 2025 - just two and a half years after commencement - some 35 of all deaths in Queensland were by euthanasia and assistance to suicide.

One relevant factor in this higher rate compared to other Australian states could be that the eligibility criteria in Queensland include a prognosis that the condition is " expected to cause death within 12 months" whereas it is six months (except for neuro-degenerative conditions) in the other states.

Practitioners

Registered nurses are allowed to administer the prescribed lethal substance to cause a person’s death. 218 registered nurses have done the training (compared to 226 medical practitioners and 26 nurse practitioners).

35 nurses and nurse practitioners administered a lethal substance to a person in 2024-25, compared with 51 medical practitioners. Of these 86 State trained professional killers, 39 were serial killers in 2024-25, killing five or more people each.

Of the 121 practitioners involved in 2024-25 as coordinating or consulting practitioners 50 of them were involved in 21 or more cases (that is an average of at least one case every 17 days).

Prognosis

Unlike other United States and Australian jurisdictions which limit assisted suicide (and, in Australian jurisdictions, euthanasia) to those with a prognosis of 6 months or less to expected death, the Queensland law allows access to those with a prognosis of expected death within 12 months.

This increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from errors in prognosis.

Refusing treatment and symptom management

The Queensland Government explicitly states that those seeking euthanasia or assistance to suicide may meet the eligibility criteria of a terminal illness that is causing suffering by refusing medical treatment and symptom management.

This makes it clear that this regime is about facilitating the intentional ending of life and not about relieving unavoidable suffering at the end of life. Under these provisions people with otherwise non-terminal conditions such as a young person with insulin dependent diabetes could be euthanased.

Timeframe

The law generally requires a nine-day period between a first and final request but this can be waived if two medical practitioners agree the person may die or lose decision-making capacity within that period.

In 2023-24, 275 people had the nine-day waiting period waived. This is 34.7 % of those who died under the Act.

Where a person is assessed as likely to imminently losing decision-making capacity there must be a real doubt as to the person ‘s current decision-making capacity so this provision increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from lack of decision-making capacity.

Government facilitation of suicide and euthanasia

The Queensland Government has established Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Support Service which will only provide information and assistance on suicide and euthanasia and will not provide any assistance or information on “any other health concerns, including your underlying conditions”.

The QVAD-Support service will directly link a person seeking to end their life with a medical practitioner willing to help them do so.

Any registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to facilitating the suicide of or euthanasing his or her patients must if asked by any person for such assistance or information give the person either the details of QVAD-Support Service or of a registered health practitioner willing to facilitate the person’s death.

The Queensland voluntary assisted dying pharmacy is funded to supply the lethal poisons for suicide to individuals and for euthanasia to administering medical practitioners or nurses.

Reporting

Clause 8 of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Regulations 2022 requires the Voluntary Assisted dying Board to collect some minimal information that is then required to be published in an annual report to be provided by 30 September each year.

This includes basic demographic data (age, sex and region) of applicants and data on the underlying condition as well as the number of deaths from self-administration or practitioner administration of lethal poisons prescribed under the Act.

The time between first and final request is to be reported.

No data on referrals for additional assessments of eligibility or decision-making capacity is to be collected. Nor is there any provision for reporting on complications, the time between administration of the poison and loss of consciousness, or the time between administration of the poison and death.

Given the general complication rate of 7% or higher reported from other jurisdictions this is a concerning lack of transparency that undermines any future claim that there are no problems with the practice of assistance to suicide and euthanasia in Queensland. We will never know.

No safe space

The Act imposes on all hospitals, nursing homes and residential aged care facilities in Queensland the obligation to allow suicide and euthanasia by lethal poison on their premises for any permanent resident of the facility and for any other resident where a “deciding medical practitioner” determines transferring the person for this purpose is not “reasonable”.

This is a violation of the human rights of freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

The sick and elderly should be able to choose to be treated or to live in a place where no-one is intentionally killed or helped to commit suicide.

Lethal substances at large

One of the obvious risks of prescribing and supplying lethal substances to be kept in the community is that the lethal substance may be ingested by a person other than the person for whom it is prescribed.

The Queensland coroner is reportedly investigating an incident, in which after a woman was prescribed lethal drugs under the Act but died in hospital before ingesting the drugs, her husband subsequently used the drugs to kill himself.

The report of the Australian Care Alliance can be found here (Link)

Australian euthanasia activists arrested for assisted suicide death trafficking.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Luca Ittimani reported for the Guardian on September 15 that Australian Police charged Ian George Taylor, Brett Daniel Taylor and Elaine Arch-Rowe with aiding suicide in the deaths of at least twp people and are being investigated over three Australian states in at least 20 deaths.

Even though Australian states have legalized assisted suicide, Taylor allegedly set-up a fake charity to obtain drugs that are used to euthanize animals for the purpose of aiding the suicides, for profit.

Ian George Taylor

Rex Martinich reported for AAP news on September 21 that:

Ian George Taylor, of Ashmore, on Friday faced Southport Magistrates Court on Queensland's Gold Coast charged with once count each of possessing and trafficking drugs.

Police allege Taylor, aged 80, trafficked animal euthanasia drugs on April 5, less than a week before his son, Brett Daniel Taylor, 53, allegedly helped a quadriplegic man to take his own life.

Brett Daniel Taylor

Martinich further reported that:

The Taylors and Southport woman Elaine Arch-Rowe, 81, were charged on September 15 following an investigation into the death of 43-year-old David Llewellyn Bedford at Hope Island on April 11.

Taylor is also accused of trafficking drugs in September when his son and Arch-Rowe allegedly attempted to aid an undercover police operative to kill themselves.

Elaine Arch-Rowe

An article by Greg Stolz that was published by the Courier Mail states that:

An undercover operative posing as a suicide candidate helped bust open a $12,000-per-dose euthanasia drug ring operating on the Gold Coast.

An ABC news Australia article by Alexandria Utting stated that:

Mr Taylor operated a business called End of Life Services, which according to its website helped to "plan and administer a loved [one's] passing", including preparing wills and enduring power of attorney documents.

Utting also reported that Elaine Arch-Rowe, 81, who was also charged:

She was formerly a coordinator of the Gold Coast chapter of Exit International, a euthanasia advocacy organisation.

Exit International is the group that is founded and operated by Philip Nitschke, the man who has been promoting the Sarco suicide machine.

Utting reported that Taylor had plans to grow his killing business:

In the documents, police alleged Mr Taylor told Ms Arch-Row in intercepted telephone calls that he would be the largest supplier of pentobarbital in Australia within 12 months.

Police alleged Mr Taylor also compared the selling of pentobarbital for assisted suicide to a "drug cartel" and planned to move the business overseas once he had made enough money.

Several articles suggested that Taylor and Arch-Rowe identified potential death clients by working with other euthanasia and assisted suicide organizations.

This case shows you the inter-connections between euthanasia organizations and activists on a world-wide basis. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will continue following this story.

Help the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition during the Canada Post strike.

Canada Post is once again on strike and nobody knows how long the strike will last. 

Support EPC during the postal strike, by donating online by credit card, or online by paypal or send e-transfer donations to: info@epcc.ca or make a donation or become a monthly donor by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.

EPC has launched a campaign supporting Bill C-218, the private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. This campaign includes a website, the production of a video featuring personal stories and a lobbying campaign that includes personal meetings and letters and online messaging. Bill C-218 will likely have it's first hour of debate in November.

 

The Canada Post strike significantly hinders our campaign to support Bill C-218 since many of our donors send us a cheque through the mail.

 

If the postal strike continues it will make it difficult for constituents to lobby their MP. 

 

The EPC campaign supporting Bill C-218 needs financial support. Please donate online by credit card, or online by paypal or send e-transfer donations to: info@epcc.ca or make a donation or become a monthly donor by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Last year's Canada Post strike, just before Christmas, also greatly affected the donations we would have regularly have received.

 

Thank you for your continued support, especially now as we work to support Bill C-218.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable:

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr. Ramona Coelho, who is a Family Physician; a Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Member of Medical Assistance in Dying Ontario (MAiD) Death Review Committee (MDRC); wrote an important article concerning the most recent report MDRC report that was published by the MacDonald Laurier Institute on October 2, 2025.

As stated already, the Ontario MDRC Committee examines euthanasia (MAiD) reports in Ontario and have published several reports outlining the actual experience with euthanasia in Ontario. Coelho explains the recent MDRC report that examined euthanasia for dementia and compares that report to the previous reports that looked at evaluating incurability, same day euthansia deaths, and euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.

Coelho begins her article by outlining Canada's euthanasia law and then she explains some of the information from the MDRC reports by writing:

This week, the Ontario Chief Coroner’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) released its latest report. The MDRC reviews selected provincial cases, and the committee, whose members have diverse viewpoints, contributes expertise to help the Chief Coroner formulate recommendations to clinicians and public authorities. As a member of the MDRC and a physician who cares for marginalized patients, I have serious concerns. Social vulnerability—poverty, housing insecurity, insufficient accommodations, and, in my view, systemic discrimination—combined with a superficial approach to alleviating suffering, can lead to MAiD deaths. The MDRC cases illustrate what the disability community has highlighted from the beginning—that people can be driven to choose MAiD not by their medical conditions, but by system failures, leading to the conclusion that their suffering is unbearable. Barriers to palliative care, inadequate home supports, and discriminatory attitudes send patients the message that their lives are less valuable—and that MAiD may be their most accessible option.

Coelho explains the significance of the latest MDRC report that looked at euthanasia for dementia:

The latest report focuses on dementia. While dementia cases comprise a small number of MAiD deaths, they elicit more family concerns. Consider these cases: one man with Alzheimer’s and delirium received MAiD during an acute illness while facing long-term care placement after losing his caregiver. In another case, family members raised MAiD requests on behalf of a patient with advanced dementia. These highlight the risks of coercion in an already vulnerable population. The patient with advanced dementia was assessed in a single meeting with family present, with only a limited evaluation of cognitive impairments documented. In general, informed consent is often impossible in such situations. Yet in this case, MAiD was administered.

Coelho then assesses the findings in the recent report:

In my view, similar patterns emerge across cases: capacity assessments can be inadequate, requests are sometimes accepted based on fear of future suffering rather than current suffering, and neglect—not medical decline—can drive both suffering and the administration of death. Clinician bias, where disability or cognitive decline is equated with diminished worth, creates an environment in which life-ending decisions can be made without sufficient scrutiny or attempts to address suffering. The MDRC report found that only 13.6 percent of dementia patients who died by MAiD received palliative care beforehand, meaning most never accessed treatments proven to ease suffering linked to fears that often fuel the wish to die.

Coelho then compares the report on dementia to the previous report on evaluating incurability:

Consider last month’s report: Mrs. A, isolated, severely obese, depressed, and disconnected from care, refused treatment and social support but requested MAiD; instead of re-engaging her with care, clinicians deemed her incurable because she refused all investigations, and her life was ended. Mr. B, a man with cerebral palsy in long-term care, voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, leading to renal failure and dehydration; he was deemed eligible for Track 1 because his death was considered “reasonably foreseeable.” No psychiatric expertise was consulted despite psychosocial distress. Mr. C, a man in his seventies with essential tremor, requested MAiD primarily due to emotional suffering and bereavement. In my view, Mrs. A’s case illustrates how assessors may deem suffering irremediable without an accurate prognosis or appropriate care; determinations of incurability must never be based on patient neglect. Mr. B highlights that clinicians can seemingly allow for broad interpretations of “reasonably foreseeable natural death,” while Mr. C demonstrates that essential tremor, though incurable, does not usually constitute a serious decline, and his suffering was largely due to bereavement. While Health Canada provides guidance on what constitutes a grievous and irremediable condition, incurable or irreversible decline in capability, and reasonably foreseeable natural death—including stating that someone cannot refuse all treatments to render themselves eligible for MAiD—there are no straightforward medical definitions, allowing MAiD clinicians broad interpretive leeway with seemingly no consequences to date.

Coelho further compares the recent report to the April MDRC report that examined same day euthanasia deaths:

In April 2025, MDRC reports highlighted how assessments can be rushed and MAiD given in place of palliative care. Mrs. B, in her 80s, preferred palliative care, but adequate support, such as hospice, was denied. Instead, she underwent MAiD the same night her spouse, overwhelmed by caregiver burnout, urgently contacted the MAiD coordination service. Similarly, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, was euthanized under a waiver of final consent after he no longer recognized the MAiD provider, yet no effort was made to re-engage him to determine if he was still suffering or wanted to die before the lethal infusion was administered. Another patient, Mr. C, deemed to have lost capacity by his treating team, was roused and nodded in response to questions; this was considered sufficient evidence of capacity, and MAiD was administered.

Coelho provides information on an earlier report that looked at euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.

Cases from Track 2 MDRC reports, involving patients outside the end-of-life context, also reveal systemic failures, which I have previously written about in this forum. Individuals with complex medical, mental health, and social needs—including untreated psychiatric conditions, disabilities, trauma, and unsuitable housing—ended their lives through MAiD. Access to essential supports was limited. Patients were more likely to be poorer and women—groups already facing social injustice—and were less likely to name family as next of kin, often relying instead on friends, lawyers, or healthcare providers, highlighting isolation.

Coelho ends her article by outlining the lack of oversight and writes:

MAiD is often framed as a matter of individual choice. But autonomy is compromised when people lack housing, palliative care, disability supports, or protection from coercion. What appears as “choice” can be masked despair, shaped by systems that frequently fail. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in March 2025, found Canada’s MAiD regime discriminatory and ableist. While MAiD was meant to relieve intolerable suffering when no alternatives remained, it instead puts vulnerable people at risk, becoming a path of least resistance when barriers to care exist, preying on fear of being a burden and often overlooking supports that could genuinely alleviate suffering.

I have always stated, in the past, the problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide (MAiD) is that concerns the killing of people and Canada's law permits doctors and nurse practitioners to kill people at a vulnerable time in their life. 

Help care for Roger, and protect him from euthanasia?

Help provide care for Roger Foley (Life Funder Donation Link).

Dear Friends,

My name is Roger Foley. I live with a rare, progressive neurological disease called Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 14 (SCA14) along with other severe disabilities. I’m currently a patient ‘trapped’ inside London Victoria hospital in Ontario because the self-directed home care I need has been cruelly withheld by public health authorities.

Hospital staff have repeatedly offered and pressured me to consider Canada’s infamous euthanasia program Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) while simultaneously obstructing the very services and supports I need to live safely. Despite my condition, I have fought tirelessly for my rights, dignity, and the ability to return to the community.

On May 7, 2025, the hospital removed the specialized lighting accommodations that I had relied on for years. These accommodations were medically necessary due to my severe neurological photosensitivity and visual disability. To safely swallow liquids or pureed foods, I must be lifted with a mechanical sling and seated in a solid chair, where I can achieve more than a 90-degree forward neck bend to perform an effortful swallow technique with a chin tuck. This is essential to prevent choking, aspiration, and pneumonia. Without the lighting accommodations, I cannot safely eat, take oral medications, or even drink water. The hospital’s fluorescent and halogen lighting emits high-intensity blue wavelengths that cause intense eye pain and injury. My eyes require non-direct, low-intensity amber-wavelength lighting—the exact conditions provided by the longstanding accommodations that were removed.

Help provide care for Roger Foley (Life Funder Donation Link).

Since then, I have also been starved of basic care: placed on IV fluids, subjected to ongoing dehydration and malnutrition, repeatedly berated and harassed by staff, violently woken under the guise of so-called “checks,” and assaulted with other abusive tactics.

After months of research beginning in late July, I now rely on taped-together makeshift ski goggles—stacking three separate visors to approximate the <1% VLT amber filtration I medically require but which does not exist commercially. Because of my malformed cervical spine, however, I can only tolerate these heavy goggles for about 10 minutes at a time, which allows only minimal hydration but not food or medication. Despite all efforts, I remain dehydrated and in increasing neck pain from being forced to use makeshift goggles just to access partial fluids.

The hospital refuses to restore my accommodations or provide even the most basic humanitarian needs: food, water, oral meds, and toileting. This is why I’m asking for your gracious assistance.

Without proper lighting accommodations and support:

• I can only tolerate fluids for a few minutes at a time using makeshift taped-together ski goggles.
• I am unable to eat solid food or take oral medications.
• My arms are scarred from repeated IV insertions because my veins keep collapsing.
• I live in constant pain, severe fatigue, and cognitive decline from dehydration and lack of sleep.
• Staff continue to impose arbitrary and unsafe “rules,” including denying me side rails during transfers and barging in with bright lights – despite knowing it causes me extreme harm.

I never consented to this treatment. It is a form of cruel punishment and discrimination that has destroyed my health and quality of life.

But, an independent non-profit organization, Life Care Network Inc., has stepped forward to help me. They are prepared to send Personal Support Workers (PSWs) directly into the hospital to provide me with the essentials the hospital refuses to:

• Food
• Oral medications
• Hydration (safe access to water)
• Toileting and basic hygiene support

Life Care Network has already assessed the specialized lighting set-up in my room and confirmed it is safe for staff, visitors, and care providers. This means that independent PSWs can safely provide the care I urgently need without harm to anyone.

Help provide care for Roger Foley (Life Funder Donation Link).

To make this possible, in addition to Life Care’s limited funding, I require additional financial support to cover the costs of bringing PSWs into the hospital on a consistent basis. Without this, I remain completely dependent on a hospital that refuses to meet even my most basic needs and continues to actively try to end my life.

100% of your donation will directly fund safe and independent care, ensuring I have access to food, water, and dignity while I continue my fight for justice.

So I ask you to please consider donating whatever you can – 100% of every contribution goes directly to supporting my care through Life Care Network. 

My life and survival depend on this care. Please help me access the essentials that everyone deserves – food, water, medications, and personal safety.

Thank you sincerely for your consideration to make a personal difference by supporting and standing for life in a very compassionate and practical way.

Roger Foley

P.S. For your prayerful consideration: “Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ ” Matthew 25:44-45

P.P.S. Sadly, I had tried to previously fundraise on LifeFunder, but the credit card processor refunded all donations because I was unable to provide a valid ID from my hospital bed. Life Care Network has now stepped-in and is humbled to host this fundraiser and collect the funds on my behalf.

Thank you sincerely for your consideration to support me, God bless – Roger

Help provide care for Roger Foley (Life Funder Donation Link).

Euthanasia for Canadians who are not terminally ill.

Kindness or Cruelty?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paula Ritchie died by euthanasia

An article by Katie Engelhart that was published in the New York Times on June 1, 2025 asked the question: Do patients without a terminal condition have the right to die?

Engelhart's article features Paula Ritchie, a woman with disabilities related to post concussion syndrome, who sought and was approved for euthanasia (MAiD) by Dr Matt Wonnacott in Ontario.

This is not a new story, but I decided to write about it based on other concerning stories that have also recently published, such as a person with dementia, in Ontario, who died by euthanasia, even though it was her family that made the request, a Nova Scotia woman who was offered euthanasia, but is now receiving treatment in the US, an obese Ontario woman, died by euthanasia, after refusing any treatment for her eating disorder.

Matt Wonnacott

Engelhart interviewed Dr Matt Wonnacott, the primary assessor for Ritchie who determined that she qualified for euthanasia, and then killed her. Engelhart reports:

“You’re a difficult case,” Wonnacott admitted. Another clinician had already assessed Paula and determined that she was ineligible — but there was no limit to how many assessments a patient could undergo, and Paula had called the region’s MAID coordination service every day, sometimes every hour, demanding to be assessed again, until the nurse on the other line had practically begged Wonnacott and his colleagues to take Paula off her roster.

Engelhart later reports:

Wonnacott already believed that Paula met most of the criteria for MAID, on the basis of her neurological disorder and lingering symptoms. Still, he wondered if there was anything he could do to make her life better, or at least good enough that she wouldn’t want to die. In particular, Wonnacott wanted to know if Paula would consider seeing a neuropsychiatrist, a specialist who worked at the intersection of chronic pain and brain injury

Wonnacott further explains his reason for approving Ritchie for euthanasia.

“That’s a great question,” Wonnacott said. The answer was: at any point she wanted. There wasn’t a specific number of treatments she was required to undergo before she could get MAID, or some specific period of time she had to suffer before she was deemed, under the law, to have suffered enough. Paula was allowed to say no. To say enough is enough.

“It’s not my role to force you to do anything, even if I genuinely think it would really help you,” Wonnacott said. In the doctor’s opinion, Paula’s understanding of her injury was not perfect, but it was not distorted by her mental illness either. Her MAID request didn’t seem to be a cry for help, or a lashing out, or a manipulation. She had tried to get better, after all. She seemed to be thoughtful about the costs and benefits of dying. “I think you have capacity,” he told her.

Wonnacott approves euthanasia for Ritchie, an irreversible decision, for next week, even though treatment options are available. Wonnacott emphasizes that she is not required to attempt effective treatments. 

Donna Duncan's daughters

This case is very similar case to the euthanasia death of Donna Duncan.

Paula Ritchie does not have a physically or terminally illness, but rather she was suffering from a concussion, which is serious and debilating, but, does it qualify for being killed? Wonnacott approves the euthanasia.

Engelhart offers an assessment of the changes to Canada's euthanasia after it was legalized and emphasizes Wonnacott's support for euthanasia by writing:

But Wonnacott, Paula’s MAID assessor, started seeing Track 2 patients right away. He believed that bodily autonomy and patient choice should be the guiding tenets of his practice, and that many doctors didn’t respect these things enough. Every week or so, he would receive an email from the regional case-coordination service with a list of prospective patients, and when he had the time, he would take a few names from the bottom of the list: the people who had been waiting the longest for an assessment — sometimes because they were difficult cases.

Engelhart's article is actually designed to promote the expansion of euthanasia in Canada by justifying the killing of people, who are not dying and sometimes not even physically ill. These are the hard cases. 

I thank Engelhart because her aggressive support of euthanasia actually proves that some doctors, such as Wonnacott, are literally out-of-control and should be investigated based on the controversial nature of the euthanasia deaths that they carry-out.

Further to that, who is the gate-keeper for people who are on the outskirts of the care system and wanting to die.

Canadian with dementia Euthanized at Family’s Request

This article was published by National Review online on October 2, 2025

Previous article: Dementia patient died by euthanasia. The family made the request (Link).

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Euthanasia/assisted suicide “protective guidelines” don’t really protect against abuse. They mostly serve as window dressings to make people comfortable with killing the sick. And soon after legalization, the vaunted protections are redefined by activists and the media as “barriers” to death, which become the pretext for loosening the already slack guidelines. The speed at which that happens varies, but the pattern rarely fails.

Here’s an example. In Canada, a person is supposed to explicitly request and consent to being killed by a lethal jab. But a dementia patient was recently euthanized at the request of her family. From the National Post story:

A frail women in her late 80s with dementia received MAID after a family member brought forward a request for an assisted death, a new report reveals. The woman’s life was ended after a MAID provider deemed the woman had given her final expressed consent to proceed, based on her ability to repeat a question and squeeze the provider’s hand.

My mother died of Alzheimer’s. I could have easily maneuvered her into a situation where she would have seemed to have consented to assisted suicide. These patients are so vulnerable and what they think or feel one minute often changes dramatically in the next.

Back to the story:

The case is among half a dozen flagged in the latest report from the Office of the Ontario Chief Coroner’s MAID Death Review Committee. Together they’re raising questions around how MAID is being approved for people with dementia, including whether people are receiving MAID without proper assessments to determine if they have the capacity to consent to death.

Of course they are. And I predict nothing will be done about it. That’s the usual pattern.

Adding to the insult, dementia patients are not receiving proper levels of palliative care in Ontario:

“What really stuck out to me is that people with dementia are choosing MAID for feelings like loss of dignity, perceived burden, emotional distress and fear,” said family physician and committee member Dr. Ramona Coelho.

Palliative care can help people grappling with such existential suffering, she said. Yet the report found only 13.6 per cent of people with dementia who died by MAID in Ontario in 2023 and 2024 received palliative care, compared to 82.3 per cent of people who received MAID for other causes.“If MAID is not to be the path of least resistance, but really the choice, then when people are scared and they need care, they should be accessing that care,” Coelho said.

But euthanasia becomes the easier path once we objectify the lives of patients and demote them from full equality into a killable caste.

This is bad. Imagine how much worse it will be when people can sign advance directives in Canada ordering themselves killed when they become incompetent, as they currently can in Netherlands and Belgium. It can even lead to a forced exit.

Legalizing euthanasia/assisted suicide profoundly changes societal values at a fundamental level. Canada is our closest cultural cousin. Cultural devolution will happen here, too, if we don’t hit the brakes on legalizing assisted suicide.

Previous article about this story:

• Dementia patient died by euthanasia. The family made the request (Link).