Ottawa needs to stop saying it’s not ready for the expansion of MAID, and actually get ready by André Picard, Health Columnist, May 12, 2026, The Globe and Mail
Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying has had five years to come up with regulations for the provision of MAID for people whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder (MAID MD-SUMC).
By all accounts, it’s going to recommend prolonging the ban. Delaying a decision is not acceptable – legally, ethically, or politically.
Court rulings – including the landmark Carter decision in 2015 – have clearly stated that: a) medical assistance in dying is legal; b) a death does not have to be “reasonably foreseeable” for MAID to be granted; and c) governments cannot discriminate by denying MAID to people with disabilities.
At no point have the courts said that people with psychiatric disabilities should be excluded. What the courts have said is that governments can establish parameters for eligibility.
Federal legislation and regulations on MAID contain many safeguards, including limiting it to people suffering from a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” If a death is not “reasonably foreseeable” (also called Track 1) – a condition of the initial legislation that was struck down as unconstitutional – then a patient must undergo a more rigorous procedure to determine eligibility (Track 2).
The system works remarkably well, and Canadians have embraced it. In 2024, there were 16,499 completed MAID procedures, only 732 of them Track 2.
People with a mental illness are not excluded from MAID, because many suffer from other irremediable medical conditions. But people whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder are excluded.
because of human cruelty, notably in religious terrorists, like those that control Danielle Smith, and their desire to cause suffering or extend suffering in others. Vicious inhumane fucks.
Why? Because the government said back in 2021 that it wasn’t ready. Clinical guidelines needed to be drafted, and so did regulations.
A parliamentary committee was appointed but its first report concluded more time was needed. It nevertheless provided a good summary of the issues. The deadline was pushed back to March 17, 2027.
The latest iteration of the committee has done little but re-hash earlier debates, and in a one-sided manner.because of control by the sadistic catholic church, pimp of horrific suffering in humans and other life, globally to give orgasms to the sadistic, and contrary to what Jesus would want, if he existed as propagandized.
The committee co-chairs have both said publicly that they oppose MAID MD-SUMC, and the lack of impartiality showed. Of the 38 witnesses who testified at the hearings, 28 were clearly opposed to expansion of MAID. Only one patient was allowed to testify, and she was opposed; those favouring MAID expansion were told there was not enough time to hear them. And while several psychiatrists spoke, no representative from the Canadian Psychiatric Association was invited.
The CPA, unlike the parliamentary committee, has done its homework. They produced detailed guidance on how MAID for people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness could work in practice.
Similarly, the Canadian Association of MAID Providers and Assessors have created a thoughtful curriculum.
The CPA guidelines do a great job of underscoring the issues that make MAID MD-SUMC complex.
How can you determine if a mental illness is “grievous and irremediable”? How do you determine competency? How do you assess and manage the suicide risk of a patient requesting MAID?
Opponents of MAID argue that no psychiatric illness is irremediable, that everyone can be treated and cured eventually.Ya, and they are cruel monstrous fucks, anti Charter asshats that have no business enabling more abuse of the rights of Canadians by cowardly religious ass politicos.
But how long should a person have to suffer? How many treatments should they have to attempt? There are cases where people have lived unbearable suffering for decades. One of those patients, Claire Brosseau, has asked the court to grant her emergency access to MAID MD-SUMC.
Yes, we have to protect the vulnerable. But not patronize them or deny them the rights other Canadians have.
Surely, there are limits to how much suffering an individual should have to endure.
Every legal challenge that has resulted in MAID expansion has been brought forward by a person with a disability. Time and time again, the courts have ruled in their favour, saying bodily autonomy and freedom of choice are paramount.
MAID providers and assessors, for their part, have shown themselves to be unfailingly compassionate and ethical in facilitating dignified deaths.
Implementation of a law allowing MAID for people whose sole condition is a mental disorder was delayed due to a lack of readiness.
Five years later, Canada is ready, clinically, legally, and societally. That it is not ready politically is not a justification for denying people who suffer from mental illness dignity in death.
It’s well past time for the government of Mark Carney to stop prevaricating and allow MAID to expand in 2027.He’s another fucking coward, and worse, catholic. I expect nothing humane from him or his Harper Cons.
And, while they’re at it, get on with allowing advance requests for people with neurological conditions like dementia.
As always, the public is way ahead of the politicians on that one.
app_74397183:
Yes, we have to protect the vulnerable. But not patronize them or deny them the rights other Canadians have.IMO, many of the conversations ignore that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot be discriminatory and by disallowing people with mental illness to, at the very least, be assessed by a qualified assessor, is to discriminate.
As I see it, the conversation is moot. It isn’t a matter of ‘allowing’ or giving the decision to the psychiatric community, it’s about (as Andre said) putting in the framework. The psychiatric community is continuing to think they have the power. They don’t and now the federal government is compelled to provide equal access. They (the psychiatric community) would have been much better served, as would their patients, if they had spent the time to help with the framework instead of working against it.
Under our laws and with stringent and universal regulations and requirements, those who are suffering from diagnosed mental health illness can make their own decisions.
Why would anyone try to remove a right from a particular group of people because ‘they’ don’t agree?
hamora88:
I agree with Mr Picard. As MAID will inevitably include people with mental illnesses, this government needs to get on with it
debbie1212:
people should always have the right to decide when they have had enough and should be granted to a kind and humane demise. prolonged and distressing mental illness should be included here.
@ginasilva.bsky.social:
Even those in favour of expanding MAID to the mentally ill use words that imply mental pain is less legitimate, less real, than physical pain. It’s “only” or “solely” mental illness. All pain is subjective. The only person capable of judging if suffering is unbearable is the one experiencing it.
Claire Elyse Brosseau:
This makes me ill. I’d like these people to know how much worse they’ve made me feel. How sick this makes me. How much faster I want to leave this world. Because of them. I’ve always been sick, but people who have no respect, who lie, who have no actual moral high ground, who are interested in protecting nothing but their own feelings– printing an attack on the very woman who’s actually respecting me as a human being, who’s done nothing but support me- they’ve made it so much worse. If their intention is to save people, they should know they’re burying people. Had they any idea of the messages I get every day- they are burying people. Thank you for writing this. Helen Long is one of the most honest, respectful, and gracious people I’ve ever known. She read that for me because the committee refused to consider those directly affected by this law.
These people are hurting us- they’re hurting me. How dare they. How dare they. They’ve made it so much worse.
Here are real concerns: My mother can’t stop crying. I can’t move. What they’ve done is horrible. They are discriminating against me because I don’t look like what they would rather a disabled person should. There’s no misunderstanding. This is a complete picture. They are ignoramuses and mean to their core. They’re ensuring to bury me, those like me, and their families.
Kim Carlson to SOlin:
It’s interesting that you say the mental healthcare system “shuts them up, subdues them…” But if you look below your comment you’ll find Claire Brosseau someone who has lived with debilitating mental illness for decadea. She is yelling from the rooftops and her voice is being heard, by media and advocacy groups.
Ironically the people who don’t want to listen to her was the special committee designed to determine healthcare readiness for MD-SUMC.
I agree the healthcare system when it comes to mental illness definitely needs some work. But that does not justify categoically excluding a group of the population from being assessed for a healthcare/EOL options that others can access…while telling them in the same breath that mental illness is as serious as physical illness!
With regard to your statement that we “are part of the system. The one that doesn’t help”. That is a pretty disgusting statement to say to two registered nurses with years of experience in frontline healthcare, working full time supporting patients and their families….what part of that job doesn’t sound like we are helping people?
Choosing Death:
UGH!! I wish they would post this article in major newspapers so the general public who mostly support MAiD and choice can hear the facts and not a skewed version that fits a certain political/religious vent. This is the unfortunate reality right now – over here in the USA every day is another shit-show as we watch the truth and democracy erode at the hands of greedy sensationalists. That MAiD has actually been approved in 14 States is a miracle in the given climate. Keep up the good fight you guys – the truth is needed more than ever.
Nikki Barnett:
Excellent article! I suppose suing these people for slander and defamation would cost too much money …. Thank you for all you do!
Claire Elyse Brosseau:
I was just thinking the same thing. Exactly the same thing.
A Personal Attack on Helen Long Built on a False Premise, How one EPC blog post tells us everything we need to know about the anti-MAiD movement by MAiD in Canada, Paul Magennis, and Kim Carlson, May 19, 2026
This post is going to have a slightly different tone than our usual work.
We generally try to stay calm and measured when responding to misinformation about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). We like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say something untrue. We believe these conversations matter, and because they matter, we believe they should be approached carefully, honestly, and in good faith, even when there is profound disagreement.
Our issue is not when people oppose MAiD. People are entitled to their beliefs. They have the right to believe MAiD is wrong, to campaign against it, to advocate against it, and to try to persuade others of their position. We would defend that right. Our issue is with dishonesty — especially when it is used to smear people or groups advocating for patient choice.
One of the increasingly unavoidable realizations we have had is that some of the loudest and most influential opponents of MAiD appear willing to abandon intellectual honesty, truth, fairness, and even basic decency the moment those attributes become inconvenient to their broader ideological project of opposing MAiD.
A recent post published on the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) blog is one of the clearest examples we have seen in quite some time.
The statement and the post
On May 5th, 2026, Helen Long, CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada, appeared before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. This committee was examining healthcare readiness for MAiD where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition (MI-SUMC). During those hearings, Senator Rosemary Moodie raised an obvious and uncomfortable issue: the total absence of testimony from people who were themselves directly affected by the exclusion being debated.
In response, Helen Long read part of a statement written by Claire Brosseau, a woman living with severe and debilitating mental illness who had sought the opportunity to testify before the committee herself. Claire’s point was straightforward and difficult to refute: anti-MAiD advocates, activists, family, and commentators were being invited to discuss the lives and autonomy of people like her, while people like her were entirely excluded from the conversation itself.
At one point in the statement, Claire wrote:
“We so often hear the expression ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ and yet they have refused to hear from any people who are harmed from the exclusion…”
Two days later the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) blog cross-posted an article by former EPC president Amy Hasbrouck titled “Nothing About Us, Without Us.” The article was framed as a criticism of Helen Long supposedly appropriating the disability rights slogan “Nothing About Us Without Us” for herself and for Dying With Dignity Canada.
The opening framing stated:
“Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement…”
And from there the article spiraled into a sustained character attack on Helen Long.
Not a substantive critique of Claire Brosseau’s exclusion from the committee. Not an argument about whether people directly affected by these policies should be heard. Not even a serious engagement with the actual issue being raised.
Instead, the article criticized Helen Long’s motives, ethics, empathy, feminism, understanding of ableism, and moral character.
Amy Hasbrouck suggested that Helen Long did not genuinely care about disabled people. She accused her of not understanding the “first thing” about ableism. She implied that Helen Long lacked the standing or lived experience necessary to meaningfully speak about psychiatric illness or trauma.
At one point, Amy Hasbrouck writes that, “as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence,” Helen Long should be capable of making “a solidarity connection in a more genuine way than simply claiming it.”
This is one of the more offensive moments in the article, because it has almost nothing to do with the issue actually being discussed. Instead, it functions as a kind of moral and ideological purity test, implicitly suggesting that Helen Long’s support for MAiD disqualifies her from genuinely understanding solidarity, oppression, or violence against women. The implication is not merely that Helen Long is wrong, but that she is somehow failing as a woman by holding the position she does.
And again, all of this is being directed at someone who was simply reading another woman’s statement into the parliamentary record.
The article then escalated even further, implying that support for MAiD reflects a belief that disabled people are “better off dead,” tying that accusation not only to MAiD supporters and Dying With Dignity Canada generally, but implicitly to Helen Long herself.1 By the end, the rhetoric had deteriorated into accusations that Helen Long’s “personal, pecuniary and political interests” depended on her “not understanding” these issues, followed by the sneering closing line:
“Please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.”
What makes that closing line especially revealing is that these were Claire Brosseau’s words, not Helen Long’s. By saying “get our words out of your (nasty) mouth,” Amy Hasbrouck effectively excludes Claire from the very “us” she claims to defend. In Hasbrouck’s version of “Nothing About Us Without Us,” Claire only counts as part of the “us” when her words support Hasbrouck’s argument.2
But rather than acknowledge that uncomfortable reality, Hasbrouck redirects the attack back onto Helen Long. The problem is no longer Claire’s exclusion from a parliamentary process debating decisions that directly affect people like her. The problem becomes Helen Long’s supposed appropriation of words that, in reality, were never hers to begin with.
That is the central dishonesty of the piece. The falsehood is not that Helen Long physically said the words. She did. The falsehood is the framing: that Long invoked them for herself or for Dying With Dignity Canada, when in fact she was reading Claire Brosseau’s words about Claire’s own exclusion from the parliamentary process.
Once you understand that context, the article becomes genuinely difficult to read in good faith. Claire’s criticism disappears entirely, replaced by increasingly bitter attacks on the person who read her words aloud. Rather than engage with the uncomfortable reality that Claire’s use of “Nothing About Us Without Us” was entirely appropriate, Amy Hasbrouck transformed the situation into an opportunity for character assassination.
The “sorry, not sorry” correction
What was especially revealing is what happened after the error was pointed out.
When we first saw the article, we immediately recognized the inaccuracies in this claim as we had watched the testimonies of both Helen Long and EPC Executive Director Alex Schadenberg. Schadenberg was sitting directly beside Helen Long during the hearing. To be fair, it is entirely possible that, during a busy parliamentary hearing in which he himself was testifying, he initially misunderstood or missed the context of what Helen Long was reading.3
That would have been understandable. But that explanation ceased to be credible the moment the issue was brought directly to their attention.
We emailed the EPC and explained that Helen Long had been reading Claire Brosseau’s statement, not speaking for herself. We also raised the issue publicly in the comments section of the EPC blog post itself, writing:
“It’s interesting that you’ve left out that Helen Long did not say this about herself. She was reading a statement from Claire Brosseau…”
To Schadenberg’s credit, he approved the comment. But he then replied:
“Amy wrote the article and stated that her comment was a rumour, therefore Amy wanted the article to stand as it was written.”
At that point, the EPC and Amy Hasbrouck had been directly informed that the framing underpinning the article was entirely false. They acknowledged that Helen Long had been reading Claire Brosseau’s words. They knew the slogan had not been invoked by Helen Long for herself or for Dying With Dignity Canada. They knew the vilification throughout the article were built on a fundamentally false characterization of what had actually happened.
And they chose to leave it standing anyway!
In fact, the current version of the article now includes a brief clarification acknowledging that Helen Long was “reading a text by Claire Brosseau.” That clarification was not present in the original version of the article. It appears to have been inserted later, after the issue had already been raised both publicly and privately.
An honest mistake is one thing. Quietly adding context later while continuing to circulate an attack on Helen Long’s motives, ethics, and understanding of disabilities or trauma is something entirely different. At that point, the issue is no longer a misunderstanding. It is a choice: to continue vilifying a person under false pretenses because the EPC believes they benefit from portraying supporters of MAiD as morally monstrous.
This is about more than one article
What we see here is part of a broader pattern within the loud anti-MAiD movement: when the underlying argument becomes less persuasive to the public, the language becomes more inflammatory, the framing becomes more manipulative, and the attacks become more personal.
We have written before about the deliberate attempt to control the MAiD debate by controlling the language used to describe it. Terms like “medical homicide,” “state-sanctioned death,” and “poison” are not neutral. They are chosen because they evoke fear, disgust, and moral panic. The goal is not clarity. The goal is emotional conditioning.
Hasbrouck’s post follows the same pattern. Helen Long is not merely portrayed as wrong.4 She is portrayed as insincere, morally compromised, ignorant of oppression, indifferent to disabled people, and unworthy of solidarity herself.
This is the core tension many opponents of MAiD cannot honestly confront. Amy Hasbrouck, Alex Schadenberg, Meghan Schrader and other anti-MAiD absolutists begin from a fixed premise: people living with disabilities, and people whose suffering arises from mental illness, should never be permitted to choose MAiD. There is no circumstance, no assessment process, no safeguard, no evidence of capacity, and no expression of autonomous choice that would cause them to move from that position. They are not arguing for safer MAiD. They are arguing for no MAiD.
But that position runs directly into another principle they also claim to defend: that people living with disabilities and people living with mental illness are full moral agents, capable of directing their own care, making serious decisions about their own lives, and speaking for themselves. That is the conflict they do not want to engage with. Because if they engage with it honestly, they have to acknowledge that this is not simply discourse about “protecting the vulnerable.” It is a debate about whether some people are being denied autonomy precisely because of the diagnosis, disability, or suffering they live with.
Rather than sit with that tension, they collapse the issue into a much simpler story: MAiD is killing, supporters of MAiD are dangerous, and anyone who argues for choice is ignorant, corrupt, and complicit in harm. That is why, when confronted with people like Claire Brosseau — someone directly affected by the exclusion and willing to speak for themselves — the response is not careful engagement. It is dismissal: someone like Claire cannot possibly be a true advocate for people with mental illness.5
And when Claire’s words were entered into the parliamentary record, the response is not to address her concerns, but to criticize the reader’s character for speaking them.
When your arguments are failing
That is not what confidence looks like. That is what happens when ideologues cannot defend the full implications of their positions.
People confident in the strength of their arguments do not need to rely on this kind of (nasty) rhetoric. They do not need to preserve false framings after they have been corrected. They do not need to substitute character assassination for substance.
If anything, this should be understood for what it is: intellectual, moral, and argumentative weakness dressed up as conviction. It is the rhetoric of a movement that knows its arguments are losing persuasive power outside its own insular, ideological circles.
Unfortunately, that does not make it harmless. We still have to take unserious people seriously, because their mis- and disinformation continues to shape public perception, political discourse, and the experiences of vulnerable people trying to understand an already emotionally charged issue.
People advocating for patient choice are expected to be endlessly measured, careful, nuanced, and fair. We are expected to correct our mistakes immediately, acknowledge complexity, and engage respectfully with opposing viewpoints. And we should.
But it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that some of the loudest voices on the other side simply do not hold themselves to the same standards. Increasingly, it appears there are very few boundaries they are unwilling to cross if crossing them helps advance their political and ideological campaign against MAiD.
Amy Hasbrouck’s article was built on a false premise, and Alex Schadenberg published and defended it.
Helen Long did not invoke “Nothing About Us Without Us” for herself. She read Claire Brosseau’s words about Claire’s own exclusion from a parliamentary process discussing decisions that will have a profound effect on people like her.
Hasbrouck and Schadenberg were informed of that fact.
They kept the articles up anyway.
And that tells us everything we need to know about the EPC.
This is one of the most dishonest and offensive distortions in anti-MAiD rhetoric. No one arguing for MAiD as a choice believes that disabled people are “better off dead.” What we believe is that each individual has the right to determine when their own suffering has become intolerable, and that this judgment belongs to the person living that life — not to us, not to anti-MAiD activists, and not to the state. The point is not that anyone else should die. The point is that no one else should be allowed to decide, categorically and in advance, that another person must continue suffering against their own considered wishes, within the strict eligibility criteria and safeguards set out in law.
A common retort is that systemic ableism can shape how disabled people understand their own lives and choices. No one is dismiss that concern. It is real, serious, and worth discussing. But it is a very different argument than claiming MAiD supporters believe disabled people are “better off dead.” It is also a conversation anti-MAiD absolutists often refuse to have in any meaningful way, because engaging it honestly would require acknowledging both truths at once: that ableism exists, and that disabled people remain autonomous moral agents capable of making decisions about their own lives.
This matters because once Alex Schadenberg and Amy Hasbrouck were made aware that Helen Long was reading Claire Brosseau’s words, the implication of “get our words out of your mouth” became even more revealing. They were no longer just accusing Helen Long of appropriation. They were effectively saying that Claire’s own words did not count as “our words” because Claire did not reach the conclusion they wanted from someone in her position.
We are being deliberately charitable here. We are allowing for the possibility that Alex Schadenberg initially missed the context, even though he was sitting directly beside Helen Long when she read Claire Brosseau’s statement. That matters because it shows the disparity in how this debate is being conducted. Those of us defending choice are often careful to consider the most charitable plausible interpretation of what our opponents have said. By contrast, much of the anti-MAiD movement routinely does the opposite: they seize on the least charitable, most opportunistic interpretation available, strip words from their context, and use that manufactured version to serve their argument. Readers should pay attention to that disparity whenever they encounter claims like this.
Helen was not wrong.
This is a classic example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, where counterexamples are dismissed not by engaging with them, but by redefining the group itself. In this case, people like Claire Brosseau are implicitly excluded from being seen as legitimate advocates for people with mental illness because they support a conclusion anti-MAiD absolutists believe they are not supposed to reach. Rather than grapple with the uncomfortable reality that some people living with severe mental illness support access to MAiD, the response becomes: no “real” advocate, survivor, or representative of that community would hold such a view.
Jeffrey:
Thank you for this. I totally agree the attack is so dishonest. It’s not even misguided. It is wrong. Libellous. Disingenuous. Malicious. “Father knows best”
it is appalling “we” have to respond to these attacks. But we do. We must refute these attacks on decency.
For me (easy) access to MAiD is all and only about respecting a person’s right to request MAiD if they meet the criteria. They are compelled to make this decision independently. Independent of undue outside influence.
Deciding to exclude mental illness as a sole diagnosis was an error by the government, just as adding natural death being reasonably foreseeable was when they added it to C-14. Neither are in Carter v. Canada. C-7 removed ND RF requirement. As a result very very few additional opt for MAiD. It would be the same with mental disorders, the term the law uses. There would be very very few cases. (Like Netherlands) Most ppl suffering from mental disorders would gave comorbidities.
“Not about us without us” I find it so condescending that “we” think people suffering intolerably from anything need us to make their decisions for them. They don’t give up Charter rights just because they are unwell.
Truth be told I was told two years ago that the prognosis with the condition I have was 2-5 years or more optimistically 3-7 years. I know I would qualify for MAiD but I will wait, for now. But I know it will be there for me if I want it. I live in BC.
Refer also to:
Charter challenge against MAID law is a challenge against Charter rights: Emmett Macfarlane debunks myths spread by coalition of disability rights advocates (slippery slope enthusiasts)
And this is how the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition responds to concerns about their post, comments & their conduct. See link below:
https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/05/should-euthanasia-prevention-coalition.html?m=1
Zero accountability and zero desire to apologize, just justifications and painting themselves as innocent.
Claire Brousseau, thank you for your bravery and thank you to your parents for attempting to make the EPC accountable for their heartless words & despicable behavior💗
Now look what the inhumane anti-MAID religious terrorists are doing!
RELIGION MUST NOT MEDDLE IN GOV’T OR OUR RIGHTS! FFS
This is cruelty on steroids. How can anyone be that arrogant and ego heavy to think they have the right to interfere and control the lives of others, causing horrific abuse and suffering, stomping on charter rights? Despicable miserable interfering shits. Be anti-MAID all you like, but don’t interfere in the rights of others or, gleefully prolong the suffering of others.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) seeks intervention standing in euthanasia for mental illness case. by Alex Schadenberg, May 21 2026, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking to intervene in the “emergency relief” court case that was recently launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada’s leading ???, most cruel more like pro-euthanasia lobby group, to have an Ontario court approve death by euthanasia for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.
The May 4, 2026 Dying with Dignity press release stated that:
Ms. Brosseau, Dr. Patricia Smith, and Dying With Dignity Canada, filed a court challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the exclusion of individuals living with grievous and irremediable mental illness from MAID eligibility is discriminatory. It violates the rights to equality and liberty and security of the person protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted the court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that began in 2004 and includes interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized euthanasia in Canada. Scher stated that:
EPC will tailor its intervention, if granted, so as to not duplicate submissions made by other parties to the litigation and will focus on the scope of its intervention on the public policy implications including people with mental health disabilities on the application of an exemption to the MAiD provisions of the Criminal Code that would allow for the application of MAiD to a person with a mental illness only.
When Canada passed Bill C-7 in March 2021, that expansion of the euthanasia law included extending euthanasia to people with only a mental illness. At that time parliament declared a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone to provide time for parliament to establish guidelines. Parliament later extended the moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.
Recently parliament reconvened theheavily biased anti-MAID AMAD committee (Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying) to examine whether or not Canada was “ready” to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone. The committee will submit a report later this year.I know what the cruel anti MAIDers are going to say. No need reading the antiMAID report. It is time to stop this vile interference in the rights of suffering Canadians. Leave Claire in peace, you meddling mother fuckers, stop interfering in her charter rights!
At the same time, cruel douche fucker! Tamara Jansen (MP – Cloverdale – Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to prevent euthanasia for mental illness by excluding mental illness from being defined as a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218 will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.
Dying With Dignity, Ms. Brosseau, and Dr. Patricia Smith launched the current emergency relief court case in an attempt to get an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by giving Ms. Brosseau an exemption to be killedchildish bullies. Claire is seeking to be killed, she is seeking relief from her decades of suffering, suffering which none of you anti MAIDers have a clue about, even though parliament has a moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone.because our politicians are cowards and or ruled by fairy tale religions. Just because they can’t do their jobs as required, or don’t want to, and are forcing innocent Canadians to suffer years more than they need to, does not give them permission to keep putting off MAID for mental illness.
We will not know immediately whether or not our intervention application is accepted but we will need your financial support.Fuck! Hurting others, and being monsters about it, and seeking money to pay for their inhumane cruelty. JFC. I’ve seen it all now.
Please donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to email hidden; JavaScript is required or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.
r/Langley • 4y ago:
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT TAMARA JANSEN!
THIS WOMEN IS PURE EVIL!!! DO NOT GO TO GLOW AGAIN THIS YEAR. THERE ARE OTHER EVENTS YOU CAN TAKE YOUR FAMILY TOO.
After defending conversion therapy, B.C. MP blocks concerned constituents
WiffleBlu:
She supports conversion therapy… because, ya know, we can just beat the gay out of our kids
Will never support GLOW or anything else she’s connected with.
rosegoldmermaid92:
She also protests abortion on 200th street
BrendasMom:
She also used to quote the bible during parliament
[deleted]:
the fact that anyone would support this person says a lot about our society.
Refer also to: