From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Once again, a government report affirmed what every Canadian should know by now: People are being killed by euthanasia because they cannot access the care they actually need and in some cases are denied that care.

The “choice” that is left to them is a lethal injection. Ontario’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee’s (MDRC) latest report, “Evaluating Incurability, Irreversible Decline, and Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Death,” highlights this fact once again.

As Dr. Ramona Coelho, an advocate for people with disabilities and one of the most eloquent opponents of Canada’s MAiD regime highlighted in her analysis of the report, Health Canada dictates that a “person can only be considered incurable if there are no reasonable and effective treatments available (and) explicitly state that individuals cannot refuse all treatments to render themselves incurable, and thereby qualify for MAiD.”

However, the MDRC’s report cites cases that do not appear to qualify:

Consider Mrs. A: isolated, severely obese, depressed, and disconnected from care; she refused treatment and social support but requested MAiD. Instead of re-engaging her with care, MAiD clinicians deemed her incurable because she refused all investigations, and her life was ended.

Or Mr. B: a man with cerebral palsy in long-term care, he voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, leading to renal failure and dehydration. He was deemed eligible under Track 1 because his death was consequently considered “reasonably foreseeable.” No psychiatric expertise was consulted despite signs of psychosocial distress.

Or Mr. C: a man in his 70s with essential tremor, whose MAiD provider documented that his request was mainly driven by emotional suffering and bereavement.

In short, Coelho concludes, “Canada’s legal safeguards are failing. Federal guidelines are being ignored. The public deserves to know: Is Canada building a system that truly protects all Canadians – or one that expedites death for the vulnerable?” It has been clear what kind of system we have created for some time, which is why Canada is considered a cautionary tale even in the UK, where assisted suicide advocates violently and indignantly object to any comparisons of their proposed legislation and the Canadian regime.

The National Post also noted examples found in the MRDC’s report, noting that: “A severely obese woman in her 60s who sought euthanasia due to her ‘no longer having a will to live’ and a widower whose request to have his life ended was mainly driven by emotional distress and grief over his dead spouse are the latest cases to draw concerns that some doctors are taking an overly broad interpretation of the law.”

None of this seems to concern the federal government, much less law enforcement. Horror stories are simply not addressed, as if ignoring them means that they did not happen. Constant revelations of lawbreaking are met with silence. “A quarter of all Ontario MAiD providers may have violated the Criminal Code,” journalist Alexander Raikin warned last year in The Hub. “Does anyone care?” In fact, Ontario’s euthanasia regulators had tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations – without a single criminal charge being laid.

“Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAiD from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics; as if continued expansion is not a reality the government is choosing so much as conceding,” Elaina Plott Calabro wrote in The Atlantic recently. “This is the story of an ideology in motion, of what happens when a nation enshrines a right before reckoning with the totality of its logic.”

There is an opportunity to stop the spread of Canada’s MAiD regime. MPs Tamara Jansen and Andrew Lawton are championing the “Right to Recover” Act, which would make it illegal to euthanize someone whose sole qualifying condition is mental illness. I urge each and every reader to get involved today.

---

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

From LifeSiteNews

By  Jonathon Van Maren

An Irish mother with mental health problems killed herself under Switzerland’s permissive euthanasia regime without telling her family. Similar horror stories are happening in Canada, and the UK may be next.

Last month, Megan Royal discovered that her mother had ended her life by assisted suicide when she received a WhatsApp message from Swiss suicide center Pegasos, letting her know that her mother’s ashes would be sent to her via mail. 

Fifty-eight-year-old Maureen Slough was from Cavan, Ireland, and told her family that she would be vacationing with a friend in Lithuania. Instead, the recently retired civil servant traveled to Switzerland, where the facility says she died by lethal injection, listening to a song by Elvis Presley. Her family, including her “partner” Mick Lynch, who had spoken to her the day she died, had no idea that she was planning assisted suicide. 

Slough, who had suffered through the deaths of two of her daughters, attempted suicide in 2024, and her daughter Megan Royal says she was suffering mental anguish. “She had told us she was going to Lithuania, but she had confided in two people that she had other plans,” Royal told the press. “And after a series of concerned phone calls she said she would come home, but then we got the WhatsApp message to say she had died.”  

The suicide cost €15,000. Several weeks later, Royal and Lynch received goodbye letters from Maureen in the mail. Royal is heartbroken and outraged.  

“They should not have allowed her to make that decision on her own,” she said. “This group did not contact me, even though my mother had nominated me as next of kin. They waited until afterwards and then told me she had died listening to an Elvis Presley song.” Pegasos claims that they were provided with a letter from Royal affirming her knowledge of the suicide, verified through an email address. Royal received no email; the family says the letter was likely forged. 

According to UK Right to Life, Slough’s brother Philip, a U.K. solicitor, “has written to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, urging them to investigate the matter with the Swiss authorities … he said that Pegasos had failed to follow its own policy of informing family, adding ‘it appears my sister provided Pegasos with letters of complaint to medical authorities in Éire in respect of bogus medical conditions, and that these documents were considered by Pegasos in support of her application.’” 

He continued: “While I understand that Swiss law permits assisted dying, the Pegasos clinic has faced numerous criticisms in the UK for their practices with British nationals, and the circumstances in which my sister took her life are highly questionable.” Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since 1941 and is only illegal for the ambiguous reason of “selfish motives.” Switzerland has long been a destination for suicide tourism, and UK Right to Life noted that “Pegasos was at the centre of a similar controversy  earlier this year when a British mother, Anne, ended her life at the Pegasos  assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland without informing her family.” 

Many are already observing that if Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill becomes law in the United Kingdom, similar scenarios could soon be a reality in the UK. MP Danny Kruger attempted to table an amendment earlier this year requiring people seeking assisted suicide to sign a document declaring whether they had informed their family of their plan; it was ignored.  

“That is the saddest thing, which was hinted at quite strongly – in fact, stated explicitly – in some of the evidence sessions,” Kruger told the House. “It has been suggested that wanting a loved one to live is seen by doctors as a form of coercion that should be resisted; that trying to argue a loved one out of an assisted death is the coercion that we need to guard against and, on that basis, we should not be making any expectation that families are informed.”  

“What a tragic thing for us to say,” he continued. “To enable doctors to issue lethal drugs that kill people without their family knowing is an absolutely tragic thing. I beg the Committee to consider what on earth we are doing allowing that.” 

Kruger is not exaggerating. At a press conference in British Columbia for MP Tamara Jansen’s Bill C-218, which would ban euthanasia for those suffering from mental illness, Alicia Duncan told the gut-wrenching story of discovering that her mother had been euthanized after being hospitalized for a mental health crisis – and finding out about her mother’s death via text message.

If the House of Lords passes Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill – and if MP Tamara Jansen’s “Right to Recover Act” fails to pass this fall – stories like that of Maureen Slough will become excruciatingly common. Parliamentarians must act to protect the vulnerable. If they do not, children discovering that their parents have died by suicide and that their ashes are in the mail will no longer be a horrifying aberration, but a social norm.