Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, who is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE) was published in Spiked on April 18, 2024 is asking the question: Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Yuill begins his article by telling the stories of Yolanda Fun and Zoraya ter Beek:

Jolanda Fun is scheduled to die next week on her 34th birthday. As such, she has been able to prepare the funeral invites in advance. ‘Born from love, let go in love’, reads the card. ‘After a hard-fought life, she chose the peace she so longed for.’

Fun, who lives in North Brabant in the Netherlands, explained why she wants to die in an interview with The Sunday Times last week. Though she is physically healthy, she feels constantly ‘sad, down, gloomy’. At age 22, she was diagnosed with a litany of mental-health problems and has since run the gamut of therapies. Consequently, she has never been able to hold down a job. When a counsellor told her two years ago that she could be euthanised, she decided this was the only option left for her. ‘I want to step out of life’, she explains. 

Fun has no doubt had a difficult life. She suffers from an eating disorder, recurrent depression, autism and mild learning difficulties. But to suggest suicide as a cure to these problems is as good as giving up on her.

Shockingly, Fun’s case is not all that unique in the Netherlands. Earlier this month, it was reported that another young, physically healthy Dutch woman is seeking euthanasia on mental-health grounds. The 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek is scheduled to die in May on account of her depression and autism.

Yuill then explains how euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has expanded.

Most cases of assisted suicide or euthanasia (ASE) in the Netherlands – the first country to legalise the practice in 2002 – involve people with terminal illnesses. But ASE for psychiatric reasons is on the rise. In 2010, only two people sought euthanasia on the grounds of mental health. That increased to 68 in 2019 and to 138 last year.

Psychiatric euthanasia remains divisive in the Netherlands. Many Dutch people who were initially in favour of ASE are reconsidering their positions because of it. Boudewijn Chabot is one such critic, a psychiatrist who actually received a suspended sentence for carrying out the first reported case of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the 1990s. Now Chabot worries that the legalisation of ASE has gone too far. ‘I am not against euthanasia in psychiatry or severe dementia’, he writes. ‘[But] I am extremely concerned that doctors are trying to solve social misery due to lack of treatment and care, by opening the gate to the end.’

Yuill continues:

There is no doubt that the Netherlands’ laws on euthanasia have harmed the most vulnerable. In 2023, a study found 39 cases of ASE in the Netherlands involved people with either learning disabilities or autism, or both. Of these, nearly half were under 50. Although many of these patients also suffered from physical co-morbidities that led to them seeking out ASE, 21 per cent of them did so primarily for psychiatric reasons. They cited characteristics associated with their conditions, such as anxiety, loneliness, difficulty in making friends and connections, and not feeling they had a place in society.

A growing number of people with dementia are also seeking euthanasia in the Netherlands. In fact, 42 per cent of Dutch GPs reported requests for euthanasia from people with dementia. Of those, patients cited feeling like an emotional burden as the most frequent reason. Disturbingly, just under 43 per cent of these patients said they felt pressured by relatives.

Yuill then warns countries that are debating euthanasia to consider the grim reality:

In Scotland, where the government is currently considering a bill to allow assisted suicide, support for legalisation has consistently dropped since 2019. Perhaps this has something to do with the neverending stream of horrific stories emerging from countries where ASE is legal. In Canada, people seek out euthanasia to solve poverty, homelessness and lack of medical care. In the Netherlands, therapists seem to have given up on treating the mentally unwell, recommending euthanasia instead. 

Yuill ends his article by explaining 

The brutality of encouraging those like Jolanda Fun to die destroys the argument that ASE is about compassionately relieving end-of-life suffering. Fun herself is unsure whether or not things could have been different for her, had she received the right treatment. ‘They say you are born like this’, she says, ‘but I really think the services should have listened a bit better’.

This is where treating death as a form of medicine has led to. Medical professionals should be telling suicidal people that life can get better, not encouraging them to give up. Allowing euthanasia on psychiatric grounds tells those suffering with a mental illness that their lives are not worth living. This is not compassionate or dignified. It is evil. 

More articles on this topic:

• Autistic 28-year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to die by euthanasia (Link).
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report - A 20% increase in euthanasia for mental illness (Link).

Great news: The California assisted suicide expansion bill (SB 1196) is dead.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news. The California assisted suicide expansion bill (SB 1196) has been pulled. 

This is great news, but let's be clear, the language of SB 1196 is the goal of the assisted suicide lobby but the bill was determined to have gone too far too fast.

Based on the summary of SB 1196 by Senator Blakespear I stated that the bill would have:

1. Allowed euthanasia by IV (intravenous), as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses). This bill allowed for death by IV. This constitutes euthanasia/homicide.
2. Changed the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” Thus, there would be no time limit  and no terminal illness requirement.
3. Allowed people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent.
4. Removed the California residency requirement. California would join Oregon and Vermont, dropping their residency requirements and allowing for suicide tourism.
5. Removed the 48 hour waiting period between first and second request by the patient - same day death. 
6. Removed the 2031 sunset clause in the California assisted suicide law.

I published an article on March 18, 2024, stating that the California bill would legalize medical killing. After the language of SB 1196 was released I further explained how SB 1196 would have expanded medical killing in California.

SB 1196 would have changed the law from requiring ingesting of the lethal poison to utilizing the lethal poison. Utilize was not defined in the bill but it could be defined as: "to make practical and effective use of."

SB 1196 would have changed the law from requiring a terminal disease to a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

Terminal disease was based on a 6 month prognosis whereas grievous and irremediable medical condition had a long definition that essentially mean't that the person has a serious chronic condition that will continue to decline.

The bill stated:  

For purposes of this part, a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” includes a diagnosis of early to mid-stage dementia while the individual still has the capacity to make medical decisions. 

IV catheter

How would early to mid-state dementia have been defined in practise?

SB 1196 permitted non-doctors to participate in the law. SB 1196 added the following: nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses.

SB 1196 removed the residency requirement in the California law by striking out the words - is a resident of California.

SB 1196 allowed the use of an IV (intravenous) catheter to "utilize" the poison. SB 1196 stated:  

death through ingestion, or through an intravenous pathway after a health care provider places an intravenous catheter if one was not already placed, to bring about the qualified individual’s own death. 

This statement did not limit the use of the IV catheter to assisted suicide and may have allowed for euthanasia/homicide.

Later SB 1196, stated:  

For purposes of this section, “assisting the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug” includes a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter, so long as the health care provider does not assist the qualified individual in introducing the aid-in-dying drug into the qualified individual’s vein.

This statement inferred that the person must somehow utilize the IV catheter. The IV could be placed but the health care provider could not "assist". This was intentionally confusing. There may also have been circumstances, such as ALS, where the person has difficulty "utilizing" the IV catheter without assistance.

On June 22, 2022, a California federal judge rejected a case designed to permit euthanasia within California's assisted suicide act. Shavelson, a doctor that solely focuses on assisting suicide and Sandra Morris, who had ALS, argued that the state's assisted suicide law discriminated against people who had difficulty self-ingesting the lethal drugs and to remedy the situation the state needed to permit euthanasia in those cases.

In that case, Shavelson argued that allowing the administration of lethal drugs by IV catheter when a person has difficulty self-administering the lethal drugs was necessary. Justice Chhabria rejected the argument and stated:

Chhabria ruled the case could not proceed on the theory that it violates the ADA because the accommodation they seek would cross the boundary created by the End of Life Option Act, “from the ability to end your own life to the ability to have someone else end it for you.”

Chhabria further ruled:

“Such an accommodation would ‘compromise' the essential nature of the act, and would therefore fundamentally alter the program.’”

The judge said the law’s self-administration requirement is the “final safeguard” to ensure the act remains voluntary.

“A person seeking to end their life pursuant to the act can opt out at any point — after requesting or receiving the prescription, after the drugs are in their hand, after the feeding tube has been installed, after saying goodbye,” he wrote. “The accommodation that the plaintiffs seek would significantly undermine these protections by opening a window during which there would be no way of knowing whether the patient had changed their mind.”

If SB 1196 would have changed the California law by removing self-administer, removing the terminal illness requirement and allowing the utilization of an IV catheter, these changes would make it impossible to distinguish between an act of assisted suicide and an act of euthanasia/homicide. 

Assisted suicide is receiving lethal poison and self-administer it for the purpose of causing death.

Euthanasia is when another person, usually a medical professional, administers the lethal poison for the purpose of causing death. Euthanasia is a form of homicide/murder.

Since SB 1196 did not require a "third/independent party" to witness the act, therefore SB 1196 would have enable euthanasia under the guise of assisted suicide and achieve for the euthanasia lobby what was denied to them by Justice Chhabria in 2022.

SB 1196 was a "Trojan horse" euthanasia bill.

SB 1196 is the end goal of the assisted suicide lobby.

Autistic women in Canada and the Netherlands plan to die by euthanasia.

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

I am commenting on the cases of the young women with autism, ADHD, depression and Borderline Personality Disorder who are planning to have their lives ended in Canada and the Netherlands from the perspective of someone who also has autism, ADHD and depression. I am not a psychologist and I’ve never met either person, but I will do my best to share insights about those situations based on my own experiences.

The cases strike me as presenting a lot of issues so this article is long. The issues that stick out to me are the devastation a person might feel when they are told that their mental health conditions can never improve, the abusiveness of that advice, the right to die movement’s flippant attitude toward death, the nature of true friendship, the autistic tendency to fixate, and the complex experience of autonomy that occurs when a autistic adult lives with their parents.

I’ll start with the 28-year-old woman in Belgium with autism, BPD and depression. Ter Beek’s situation makes me think of two issues, one being the euthanasia movement’s flippant approach to death and the potential inaccuracy or hubris of doctors who dole out mental health diagnoses. Ter Beek was told that she could never get better, which is something I’ve been told during my struggles with treatment resistant depression, at my lowest moments after multiple futile hospitalizations and medication trials. Hearing those predictions was gutting, and I understand why some people who get that kind of prognosis might feel motivated to have their lives ended.

But just giving up on a patient and suggesting that they die is abusive. It’s common for clinicians to arrogantly dole out demoralizing predictions to disabled people that would make anyone fearful of the future; and that can certainly contribute to the conclusion that one should die. I’ll never forget one counsellor at a partial hospitalization program who barely knew me, but took it upon herself to announce to me that the combination of my learning disability, autism spectrum disorder and depression was so disabling that I would never work and would have to live in a group home for the rest of my life. (That’s not true; now I live in an apartment and work at a job I love.) A medical system or physician who tells people, “you’ll never get better; maybe you should kill yourself” is doling out an even more arrogant and abusive recommendation.

It’s worth noting that dark predictions of things never getting better fit into a pattern of people with Borderline Personality Disorder struggling to access adequate care. People with BPD are more likely to have clinicians give up on them because of stereotypes about people with BPD, because people with BPD have a higher incidence of suicide, and because the symptoms of BPD sometimes make the person difficult to interact with (Link to article). But, recovery from BPD is very possible; in fact, the woman who developed Dialectical Behavior Therapy, the gold standard treatment for BPD, had the disorder herself (Link to article). I have a colleague at my job who has BPD, and she’s now living her best life, doing wonderful work with our students. There’s also evidence that the symptoms of BPD, which can be very acute in a person’s twenties, decline with age. (Link to article) So, often clinicians assume that people with BPD are bad or unfixable people, but it’s just not true. People with BPD can effectively manage their condition and lead meaningful, happy lives (Link to a book on the topic).

Another thing that stood out to me when I looked at the article about Ter Beek is the euthanasia movement’s trivialization of death. Now, a mentor who provided feedback on this article pointed out to me that people have many different ways of processing what death is. He commented: 

“Many might argue that fear is not the only appropriate or even “reasonable” response. Many religious systems perceive death as a step toward eternal life, and other think of death as ‘not being,’ that is as potentially neutral as being, perhaps within the will/power of divine order that transcends us.” 

Zoraya ter Beek

Fair enough, but I still think that the right to die movement is trivializing the harm of death. In the interview she did for the Free Press, Ter Beek says that she’s a little scared to die, but the picture of her accompanying the article has her looking sanguine in a way that reminds me of someone who is modelling clothing; she refers to the urn her ashes will be kept in as “my new house;” as though being a pile of ashes kept in a urn on someone’s desk is the equivalent of buying a condo (Link to article). This description of death indicates an unverifiable certainty that death is a doorway to something good. The right to die movement’s current activities are as though many of the proponents have inured themselves to the concept that death is the great unknown and that dead people are lowered into graves where their bodies are eaten by worms. I think that if Canadian and Netherlands culture treated death with more reticence and a less like a trip to some amazing wonderland of delight, the choice to be dead might not seem so appealing to disabled people who are signing up for euthanasia.

Now I’ll move on to the the young woman in Canada with autism and ADHD, MV. The thing that sticks out to me the most is that she lives with her parents, and as someone who lived with my parents on and off in my twenties, I know that that can be a complex and potentially difficult experience for everyone involved, even when everyone is trying their best and loves each other very much. So, I’ll consider how I think that situation might be impacting MV’s “MAiD” request.

First of all, we live in a culture that highly prizes autonomy and expects adult children to move out of their parents house, and I’m wondering if that’s making the experience of living with her parents seem intolerable to MV (Link to an article). But, complete independence is not the only valuable or valid conception of autonomy to operate from. In the Latino culture (Link to article) it is common for multiple generations of a family to live in the same house far into adulthood. (Link to article).

Hence, I think it might help MV to consider that the Latino culture and disability justice culture emphasize interdependence-autonomy with help from others in the context of supportive relationships. Disability Studies professor Paul Longmore put the difference between mainstream Western conceptions of autonomy and the disability justice movement’s general approach to autonomy as follows:

“For example, some people with disabilities have been affirming the validity of values drawn from their own experience. Those values are markedly different from, and even opposed to, nondisabled majority values. They declare that they prize not self-sufficiency but self-determination, not independence but interdependence, not functional separateness but personal connection, not physical autonomy but human community. This values-formation takes disability as the starting point. It uses the disability experience as the source of values and norms. The affirmation of disabled values also leads to a broad-ranging critique of non- disabled values. American culture is in the throes of an alarming and dangerous moral and social crisis, a crisis of values. The disability movement can advance a much-needed perspective on this situation, It can offer a critique of the hyperindividualistic majority norms institutionalized in the medical model and at the heart of the contemporary American crisis.” (Link to article)

So, if I could talk to MV, I would tell her that there’s no need to be ashamed that she lives with her family just because that’s not what most adults in Canada do; plenty of competent, fulfilled adults in this world do the same thing. In a way, those of us disabled adults who live with family are rebels living in a way that is counter-cultural, and that cultural deviance really isn’t a bad thing.

However, I also know that being a disabled adult child living in your parents house can sort of feel like you are stuck in a state of perpetual adolescence, and that this can cause a person to feel repressed. When I was living with my parents I was grateful for their support, but I wasn’t able to have the level of autonomy that I think most twenty-somethings want, and we sometimes struggled to communicate effectively about what each one of us needed. There were a lot of times when I found my parents well-meaning advice intensely grating or that they found various everyday behaviors of mine disruptive. That situation led to some very demoralizing conflict; being “roomates” with your parents can make some daily interactions start to feel like fingers on a blackboard, even if those family relationships are very loving.

My choice to move to Texas in my mid-thirties was also a good one. My parents and I are still very close, but they have more space to have time together as a couple and I have more room to say, “No, I don’t want to do that,” or, “I, Meghan Schrader the independent disabled adult, want help with thing A, but not thing B.”

Given my own experiences, I’m wondering if MV’s desire to die by “MAiD” is at least partially motivated by an attempt to assert autonomy in a situation where she isn’t experiencing autonomy in other domains of her life. Is there perhaps another family member or friend who she could live with for a while, who could provide support for her disability and would provide the same level of encouragement for her to live, but with whom she might feel a greater sense of autonomy? Would that make her feel as though she has better adult choices to look forward to? One thing that I think would’ve helped me in my 20s is going to a treatment facility for people with clinical depression; is that the kind of thing that MV might be willing to do that might give her a break from her environment? Perhaps MV could go on a long retreat somewhere? If a change in MV’s living situation isn’t possible right now, are there other ways that she could have more opportunities to make choices about her daily routine, establish clearer boundaries with others and direct the course of her life? (Link to a book on this topic). 

Of course, as I’ve said, I am not a member of this family and I don’t know what’s going on in their everyday lives; MV struggling to assert herself in a situation where she isn’t getting other opportunities to assert autonomy is just the kind of thing that I think might be going on based on my own experience.

However, although giving MV more autonomy in general strikes me as potentially helping to alleviate her desire to die, MV’s Dad’s statement that MV is “obsessed” with MAiD and that the obsession is related to her autism and ADHD strikes me as providing important insight into how she is experiencing the conclusion that she should die by “MAiD,” and that these dynamics complicate her experience of autonomy. An article on the situation reads:

“The wrinkle, and perhaps the tragedy, in this case is that the woman, identified only as MV, has autism and ADHD, lives with her parents and has never had an independent life. Her father, identified as WV, argued that her condition is mental, not physical, so she doesn’t qualify for MAID under current law. Her condition, he said, led to her being “obsessed” with MAID.” (Link to article).

I think some people might read that statement as a parent erroneously and paternalistically painting an adult autistic child as lacking agency, but I can say from experience that the autistic tendency to fixate is a real thing. This hyper focus is even more intense in those of us who also have ADHD, and that hyper-focus can sometimes make it difficult to break out of irrational or destructive thinking patterns (Link to article). In that case the person is not “incompetent,” but the fixation distorts the person’s ability to think through all the facts about whatever they are fixated on, sort of like if the person were mildly intoxicated (Link to image). A family member’s efforts to prevent a loved one from making a choice based on those thinking patterns are not “paternalistic,” it’s the family member being loving and responsible. Or, that’s been my experience.

For instance, MV’s intent to die by “MAiD” reminds me a little bit of some of the decisions I’ve made in the context of symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder. I’m going to withhold the details, but a couple of times I’ve made choices related to perceptual distortions from that disorder that my parents strongly urged me not to make, and I could have saved us all a lot of suffering if I had listened to them, even though I’m an independent adult who can make her own choices. I also made some important vocational decisions in my late teens and early twenties that my parents strongly advised against, and in my thirties I came to deeply regret not following their advice.

But, at least I lived to regret those mistakes and move on with my life. This young woman is presumably fixated on the idea that killing herself isn’t really so bad. Unfortunately, the fact that she’s reached that conclusion is sort of understandable in the same way that some of the ways I’ve handled body dysmorphic disorder are understandable. Western culture inundates us with ideas about what is attractive in a similar way that Canadian & Netherlands culture romanticize “MAiD.” So, “MAiD” has been presented as just another choice, and that’s a sad combination with the fixation that is more typical for those of us on the spectrum.

I think I remember reading somewhere that someone urged MV to die by “MAiD,” and that makes me very sad. It reminds me of a terrible experience I had in my early 20s when a close friend of 20 years suddenly started treating me horribly because that’s what her new boyfriend urged her to do. It was deeply wounding to have one of my best childhood friends, with whom I had shared some of the happiest times of my life, turn on me in that way, and the eventual dissolution of that friendship caused desperate loneliness. The friend who is urging MV to kill herself is abusing MV in a similar way. Urging someone to end their life is not the mark of a true and caring friend, this is a mark of someone living out their appetite for destruction by pushing someone else toward destruction. In fact, a young woman in Massachusetts served time in jail for encouraging her boyfriend to end his life. (Link to article).

My hope for MV is that she is eventually able to find better friends who will truly love and support her, like a close mentor of mine who lives near my current apartment and generously serves as a listening ear, a lunch partner and problem-solver for me. I also found it helpful to get involved with the local chapter of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network; is there a Canadian chapter of ASAN or a similar group that MV could get involved with where she could experience comaraderie with other people who have disabilities, such as one of the groups that signed this letter opposing the extension of assisted suicide to people with disabilities in 2021? (Link to article)

The last thing MV’s situation causes me to reflect on is the euthanasia movement’s privileging of personal choice above all else. In respect to MV’s intent to die, the original trial judge wrote that: 

this choice “goes to the core of her being. An injunction would deny MV the right to choose between living and dying with dignity.” 

The judge’s logic shows just how cold the euthanasia agenda is; he was denying the woman’s father the opportunity to intervene to save their daughter because the impending suicide was a choice. Canada’s “MAiD” program’s operation from that logic shows that the right to die movement treats choice as something that can never be questioned, no matter the consequences: MV’s decision to kill herself with “MAiD” is a choice, so that choice must be carried out and MV’s parents should just stand there while someone injects poison into her arm.

A culture that privileges a “choice” facilitated by state-employed doctors over instincts of family and the efforts of parents to prevent their children from being killed is an empty one. Unfortunately, the politically powerful euthanasia movement values the right to be made dead more than the deepest bonds of love and care. My hope is that MV and Ter Beek will find the love and care that they need to move beyond the desire to die and achieve something much better for themselves.

Questionable study on euthanasia and social connectedness

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study was published on April 16, 2024 titled: The association between social connectedness and euthanasia and assisted suicide and related constructs. 

The concern with loneliness and isolation in relation to deaths by euthanasia and assisted suicide is real, but this study disagrees. The study concludes:

Our findings for all age groups are consistent with a those of a previous systematic review focused on older adults and suggest that poor social connectedness is not a clear risk factor for EAS or for measures more distally related to EAS.

The study acknowledges its weaknesses, nonetheless I found this study to be questionable because it was based on data from previous studies (no new research) and the data was not primarily based on interviews with people.

The best study on this topic was done by van der lee et al and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2005 titled: Euthanasia and Depression: A Prospective Cohort Study Among Terminally Ill Cancer Patients

van der lee is a Dutch researcher who supported euthanasia and indicates that the purpose of the study was to prove that there was not an association between euthanasia and depression. In her explanation of the study van der lee states:

Second, in our experience, requests for euthanasia are mostly well considered and commonly not associated with depression.

We therefore expected that patients requesting euthanasia might be even less depressed.

The conclusion of the study was opposite to its premise:

Of 138 patients, 32 patients had depressed mood at inclusion. Thirty patients (22%) made an explicit request for euthanasia. The risk to request euthanasia for patients with depressed mood was 4.1 times higher than that of patients without depressed mood at inclusion (95% CI, 2.0 to 8.5).

Depression in cancer patients with an estimated life expectancy of less than 3 months is associated with a higher likelihood to request for euthanasia. The question of whether depressed mood can adequately be treated in this terminally ill population, and if so, whether it would lower the incidence of requests for euthanasia needs further investigation.

The significance of the van der lee study was that the conclusion was counter to the bias of the researchers. Therefore you can't argue that research bias led to the outcome of the study.

Another strength with the van der lee study is that the researchers interviewed the participants in the study. The data was based on actual people who were requesting death by euthanasia in a country where it was legal and accepted.

Another important study that was based on communication with the participants is the Irish longitudinal study that examined the wish to die (WTD) among 8174 patients who were over the age of 50. The study that was published in February 2021 followed the participants for 6 years and it determined that people who had a wish to die (WTD), almost three-quarters reported being lonely and 60% had clinically significant depressive symptoms. Other factors leading to a WTD was functional disability and chronic pain.

When the WTD was reassessed two year later, 72% of the people indicated that loneliness and depression had receded, re-affirming previous studies that prove that a WTD fluctuates.

Once again, the strength of this study was that the data came from actual communication with participants and there was no known bias associated with the researchers. 

I am convinced by the studies that obtain their data from actual participants and I am convinced from the anecdotal experience I have in personally speaking to many people who are seeking to request or who have actually been approved for MAiD.

As stated in the conclusion of the van der lee study:

Our findings suggest that depressed mood in the last months of life is associated with a higher risk for request for euthanasia.

There is a direct relationship between requests to have one's life ended by euthanasia or assisted suicide and one's feelings of hopelessness, depression and loneliness. 

I have also found through conversations with people who have been approved for euthanasia that suicidal ideation is also prevalent.

Nurse responds to story of Québec quadriplegic man who suffered neglect and then "chose" euthanasia.

The following message was from a Quebec nurse concerning the quadriplegic man who "chose" euthanasia after being left on a stretcher for 95 hours and subsequently developed a bed sore.

I am writing because I am a nurse who is having a hard time coping with the extended MAID criteria. I have worked with vulnerable populations and see that this is the governments way of “getting rid” of the problem. But really they are cornering and making the most vulnerable feel like burdens. I live in Quebec and the story of a Quebec man who was left for 95 hours in a stretcher and then subsequently sustained a bed sore has gained attention. He then was presented the option for MAID and took it due to feeling like a burden. This is directly a result of the failure of our healthcare system, and as a Canadian I no longer feel comfortable watching this happen. What can I do to help raise more awareness on this issue? I am becoming increasingly angry, and feel that there is not enough advocacy around this. I feel that this is the start of the “extinction” of the vulnerable rather than creating proper supports, infrastructure and safety nets.

We need more people speaking out, but we also need more stories uncovering the reality of euthanasia in Canada. The political shift that prevented the federal government from instituting euthanasia for mental illness alone came about from the many stories of people with disabilities who were approved for euthanasia, but requested it based on poverty, homelessness, an inability to get the care that they needed and more.

Québec quadriplegic man "chooses" euthanasia after suffering horrific negligent care. (Link).

Does Stefanie Green have a conflict of interest?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Stefanie Green is Canada's leading MAiD (euthanasia) physician. She does not do the most MAiD deaths in Canada, but she is a MAiD practitioner, MAiD trainer and more. Her own euthanasia access and promoting website states:

Dr. Stefanie Green spent 10 years in general practice and another 12 years working exclusively in maternity and newborn care. She changed her focus in 2016 and now spends the great majority of her clinical time working in assisted dying.

Based in Victoria BC, Dr. Green is the Founding President of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP). She is a co-lead for the Canadian MAiD Curriculum Project, is medical advisor to the BC Ministry of Health MAiD oversight committee, and moderator of CAMAP's national online forum.

Dr. Green enjoys speaking about MAiD to the public, to health care communities and to a wide range of audiences locally, nationally, and internationally. She is clinical faculty at UBC and UVic, and she is the author of the internationally bestselling "This Is Assisted Dying" (Scribner) about her first year providing assisted dying in Canada.

Without further investigation, it seems clear from the information on this site that Green does MAiD, regulates MAiD, teaches MAiD and is a medical advisor to the BC Ministry of Health oversight committee. How can a person who does the act and teaches people to do the act also be an advisor to the government when oversight is necessary?

I am not privy to more information but a conflict of interest investigation is needed.

The growth in killing by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Swiss assisted suicide coffin

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Daily Mail article by Hope Sloop published on July 12, 2023 concerned the assisted suicide death of Catherine Kassenoff in Switzerland.

Kassenoff, a former New York prosecutor who had cancer, suggested in her facebook message that she decided to die by assisted suicide in Switzerland because of her abusive former husband. The article stated:

In a shocking and heartbreaking post on Facebook, Catherine had asserted that Allan abused her and was attempting to ruin her life prior to her death.

The woman, who at one point worked as special counsel to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, said she was a victim to a 'predatory' court system that kept her kids away.

The couple had, according to Catherine's post, been engaged in a nasty custody battle for their three daughters that continued to escalate.

Catherine Kassenoff lost custody of her children in a divorce battle with her husband. Sloop wrote that Allan Kassenoff, a successful lawyer, was on leave from his work.

The world is aware that suicide tourists die by assisted suicide in Switzerland, but they may not be aware that suicide tourism has spilled into America.

In October 2021, the assisted suicide lobby launched a lawsuit challenging the Oregon assisted suicide residency requirement. In March, 2022 the Oregon Health Authority settled the case by agreeing to remove the residency requirement.

A February 2023 article by James Reinl published in the Daily Mail reported that Dr Nicholas Gideonse was operating an assisted suicide clinic in Oregon to prescribe lethal assisted suicide poison for death tourists.

In August, 2022, the assisted suicide lobby launched a lawsuit challenging Vermont's assisted suicide residency requirement. Lisa Rathke reported in March, 2023 for the Associated Press that Vermont's attorney general's office reached an agreement with the assisted suicide lobby to drop Vermont's assisted suicide residency requirement.

There is currently a lawsuit in New Jersey challenging their state assisted suicide law residency requirement and several US States that have legalized assisted suicide are debating legislation to remove their stateassisted suicide residency requirement.

The US assisted suicide lobby knows that they will not legalize assisted suicide in every US state. By removing the residency requirements in states that have legalized assisted suicide, anyone will be able to die by assisted suicide in the US.

Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016. 

Canada uses the term (MAiD) to avoid the terms euthanasia or assisted suicide. The difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is how the act is done. Euthanasia requires the doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison while with assisted suicide, the doctor prescribes the lethal poison but the person takes the poison themselves.

Canada’s original law had a terminal illness requirement in the law. In March 2021, Canada expanded its euthanasia law by removing the terminal illness requirement, removing the 10-day waiting period and allowing euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Once Canada removed the “terminal illness” requirement in its euthanasia law the result was the extension of euthanasia essentially to anyone with an “irremediable medical condition” (undefined phrase). Essentially this means that nearly every Canadian with a disability qualifies to be killed by lethal poison (euthanasia).

There has been media stories of Canadians with disabilities being approved for or dying by euthanasia based on poverty, homelessness, an inability to receive necessary medical care and other social reasons. Canadians were not being approved for euthanasia based on poverty, etc., but they were being approved to be killed based on having an irremediable medical condition, but their reason for asking for death was based on poverty, homelessness, etc.

The issue of euthanasia for mental illness alone remains a hotly contested issue in Canada.

In March 2021, when the government expanded the law, they placed a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone in order to develop “protocols”. The government then stated that no new protocols were needed to implement euthanasia for mental illness alone. The backlash caused the government to delay the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 2024.

In late 2023, with the anticipation that euthanasia for mental illness alone would soon begin, many of Canada’s Provincial Health Ministers challenged the federal government on this issue which led to the federal government delaying the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 2027.

Euthanasia and autism.

On January 30, 2024, a Calgary father went to court to challenge a decision that approved his 27-year-old autistic daughter for euthanasia. The father argued that his daughter was suicidal but she didn’t have any medical condition that qualified her for being killed under the law.

The Judge granted an injunction until the court could hear the case. The case was heard in March and on March 25^th the Judge stated that the law did not give him an ability to review the euthanasia approval but he held the injunction for another 30 days enabling the father an opportunity to appeal the decision. The decision was appealed on April 2 and an injunction to prevent his daughter from dying by euthanasia remains in place until the appeal is decided.

Rupa Subramanya reported for the Free Press on April 1 that Zoraya ter Beek, an autistic Dutch woman (28) who has depression, is scheduled to die by euthanasia in early May.

Similar to the Calgary woman with autism, no one questions that Zoraya experiences depression and other mental health concerns, but there is question around a decision to kill a physically healthy autistic woman.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized based on the concept of preventing suffering when a person is close to death.

In nearly every jurisdiction, after legalizing, the killing has expanded.

The reason is that there is only one clear line in the sand, that being, it is always wrong to kill people. Once the line in the sand is crossed, there is no new clear line. Any “safeguards” or new “line in the sand” are seen as discriminatory or creating an obstacle to one’s right to die.

The only answer is to prevent the legalization of killing and if legal, continue to call it what it is, killing.