Protecting patients from euthanasia

The topic of  euthanasia known in Canada as medical assistance in dying should not be raised with patients by physicians or nurse practitioners. In doing so, health care professionals risk giving the impression to the patient that he/she thinks the patient would be better off dead. Persons made vulnerable by illness may be susceptible to suggestion. 

On November 26, 2020, the Canadian Press reported that “Disability Inclusion Minister Carla Qualtrough says health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of assisted dying until a patient asks about it – and she’s open to amending the law to make that clear.”   

The minister also expressed concerns for persons with disabilities.  She responded to a case raised by Senator Don Plett in which Roger Foley, 42 years of age in 2018 and living with cerebellar ataxia, was offered euthanasia (MAiD) when what he was seeking was assisted living services.

According to the Canadian Press, Minister Qualtrough said “she has grave concerns” about the manner in which Mr. Foley was treated:

“And I can tell you he’s not alone, she added. She said she ‘regularly’ hears from people who are ‘appalled’ to discover that a family member with a disability has been offered what she called ‘unprovoked MAiD’.”…But pushed by Plett to explain why the bill couldn’t be amended to specify that discussions on assisted dying must be ‘patient led’, Qualtrough said she personally ‘would certainly be open to considering that’.”

In a Macleans piece dated February 4, 2021, Gabrielle Peters writes:

“Dr. Corinna Iampen said she was surprised when the physician standing by her bedside asked if she wanted to speak to the MAID (medical assistance in dying) team as she recovered from a permanently disabling but non-life threatening injury.

Iampens voice cracks with emotion as she remembers the moment, “I was not expecting MAID to be raised with me. It wasn’t something I was thinking about.” Iampen says her interaction does not seem to have been an attempt to induce or coerce her into considering MAID, but rather a physician confused about what the legislation required her to do.”

Ms. Peters explains later: 

“Last November Iampen was at GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre in Vancouver while recovering from a spinal injury. She was just beginning the process of healing and adjusting to the idea of her life as a paraplegic after sustaining an injury around a month prior. She said she requested a DNR be put on her file in case anything further happened. (Iampen later changed her mind and had the DNR removed.)

While discussing this with her physician, who she describes as very pleasant, she was asked if this meant she would like to apply for MAiD. Iampen said the question shocked her since in her mind the two are very different things; a DNR means limiting the intervention her medical team uses if and when she is in danger of dying ( which she was not nor was it part of her prognosis) whereas MAiD would have doctors taking action to cause her death.”

…”Iampen supports the right of those who are dying to have the choice of MAiD, but the timing and context of it being suggested concerns her.”

Considering cases brought to light by media reports, there is much to be concerned about in Canada. Regrettably, Bill C-7 passed without any amendment barring health practitioners from initiating or raising the topic of euthanasia with patients. It would have been an important measure safeguarding the right to life for those most in need of protection.  Euthanasia (MAiD)  is not medical treatment.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Four reasons Ontario does not need an abortion bubble zone law

Thursday, February 18, 2021

By Patricia Maloney

I have repeatedly said that there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. This is based on the following facts. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

First, from abortion doctor Wendy Norman from her 2012 study of Canadian abortion clinics. These are the different texts she wrote in this study pertaining to harassment at abortion places, where she explicitly says that there is little to no pro-life harassment at abortion facilities.

Page e209

“We identified 94 Canadian facilities providing abortion in 2012, with 48.9% in Quebec. The response rate was 83.0% (78 of 94). Facilities in every jurisdiction with services responded. In Quebec and British Columbia abortion services are nearly equally present in large urban centres and rural locations throughout the provinces; in other Canadian provinces services are chiefly located in large urban areas. No abortion services were identified in Prince Edward Island. Respondents reported provision of 75 650 abortions in 2012 (including 4.0% by medical abortion). Canadian facilities reported minimal or no harassment, in stark contrast to American facilities that responded to the same survey.”

Page e209

“More than half of all abortion providers in Canada are family physicians or general practitioners. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities.”

Page e212

“Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail.”

Page e215

“Canadian abortion facilities reported rare harassment. In contrast, among American abortion facilities sampled concurrently 83% reported substantial episodes of harassment, and 10% reported staff resignations owing to harassment.”

Page e216

“Conclusion. Equitable access to abortion service varies by region across Canada. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities. Provincial government leadership in BC and Quebec has demonstrated effective strategies to address inequity. Regulatory advances that could improve abortion service access include improved access to mifepristone for medical abortion; provincial leadership supporting abortion services through policy and legislation; implementation of routine training in surgical and especially medical abortion within family medicine residency programs; and regulations to broaden the scope of practice for nurses, midwives, and other allied health professionals to include abortion provision. Health policy and service improvements have the potential to address current abortion access inequity in Canada.”

Second, an FOI (Freedom of Information request) I did to the Ottawa Police, identified no arrests and no charges in a period from 2010 to June 1, 2017. Then with a subsequent conversation with the Ottawa Police, this was confirmed for me.

“Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two “level 1” assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything.”

Third, besides Ottawa’s lack of any problematic police reports, the fact that there were no other police reports in the entire province of Ontario, to support a bubble zone law. The Attorney general of Ontario quite unbelievably has no police reports from anywhere in Ontario to support this unconstitutional law against our freedom of expression rights.

“One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone? When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

“with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports.”

Finally, the Ontario government has never provided an actual reason for the need of a bubble zone.

Conclusion, there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. Not now. Not ever. This legislation is purely about pro-abortion ideology that permeates the powers that be.

Used with permission of the author.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

American College of Pediatricians: Unborn Children Feel pain

Press Release

12 January 2021

Media Contact: 

Quentin Van Meter, MD, FCP, President 

(352) 376-1877

In its recent position statement, Fetal Pain: What is the Scientific Evidence, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) reviews the laboratory and clinical data which indicates that as early as 12 weeks gestation (and possibly earlier) exposure to painful stimuli negatively affects these immature human beings. While it is obviously unethical to harm innocent human beings irrespective of their ability to perceive pain, because of the resulting acute stress responses and subsequent potential long-term negative effects, the ACPeds holds that avoiding, mitigating, and directly treating fetal, neonatal, and pediatric pain is a medical and ethical obligation.

This paper describes both where the standard of care for pain management in this population once was, where it is now, and the evidence behind the changes that resulted in dramatic medical practice improvements in neonatal and pediatric pain management. 

ACPeds board member and neonatologist Dr. Robin Pierucci stated, “Painful acts cause harm to developing unborn children and premature infants regardless of their level of conscious perception, and this fact cannot ethically be ignored.” 

Informed by the evidence, ACPeds advocates the need for in-utero, neonatal, and pediatric pain prevention, mitigation, and treatment. Medicine’s double standard of acknowledging pain capability in wanted premature babies while denying it in unwanted unborn babies of the same gestational age is unconscionable.

Read the full statement here:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bill C-7: A dangerous expansion of euthanasia in Canada

Bill C-7 is an act to amend our law on euthanasia, euphemistically referred to as medical assistance in dying or MAID. The federal government proposes Bill C-7 as its response to the September 2019 Quebec Superior Court decision striking down the requirement in Bill C-14 that natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to be eligible for euthanasia.  The government could have exercised its option to appeal the decision but chose not to. While Bill C-7 removes the clause that natural death be reasonably foreseeable, it goes much further than the Quebec Superior Court decision mandates.

This bill will greatly expand access to euthanasia. It would allow physicians and nurse practitioners to euthanize a patient even if the patient were no longer able to consent as long as the patient had requested, been approved for euthanasia and given advance consent. In Bill C-14 which was passed in 2016, the ability to consent prior to receiving a lethal injection was presented as a safeguard to protect vulnerable persons from involuntary euthanasia:

Immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying

 The 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter explicitly stated that euthanasia would be allowed “ for a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life”.

Section 3.2 of Bill  C-7 would now permit euthanasia of a patient who is no longer competent if the patient had previously given consent as long as “the person does not demonstrate by words, sounds or gestures, refusal to have the substance administered or resistance to its administration.”

However, section 3.3 which follows says: For greater certainty, involuntary words, sounds or gestures, made in response to contact do not constitute a demonstration of refusal or resistance for the purpose of paragraph 3.2c.

According to these two sections of the bill, it seems that the decision depends entirely on how the physician interprets the words, sounds or gestures of the incompetent patient.  Clause 3.3 provides protection to the physician not the patient.

Consider the following report from Holland. An elderly woman with dementia had given her consent to euthanasia in an advance directive. A physician at the facility where she lived decided later that the time had come for euthanasia. Prior to administering the lethal injection, the physician had placed a sedative in the elderly woman’s coffee. The patient struggled when the physician began the injection at which point, the physician asked the woman’s family to hold her down so she could finish the injection. The family agreed to do so.

Changing the law to allow euthanasia without final consent was not required by the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court. With advance requests there is always a risk that a person may receive euthanasia against their wishes.

Secondly, the existing law requires two independent witnesses to a patient’s request for euthanasia. Bill C-7 requires only one witness and that person can be a paid caregiver or a medical professional responsible for your care. It cannot be however, the physician or nurse practitioner who will deliver the lethal injection.

It also eliminates the 10 day waiting period between the time of the request and the provision of the lethal injection for those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable. It means that it would be possible for someone to request and receive euthanasia on the same day. For those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but meet other criteria, a 90 day reflection period is required.

Persons with chronic illnesses or disabilities are at risk with this change in the law. Support services are still lacking for persons with disabilities. Under Bill C-14, cases of coercion towards euthanasia were reported in Canadian media. CTV featured the story of Roger Foley and CBC, the story of Candice Lewis.

Finally this bill lacks specific conscience rights protection for health care professionals and institutions who object to participation in euthanasia.  Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter, euthanasia was considered homicide. Now, we are told that giving lethal injections is health care.  Patients need care not killing.

In December 2020, Justice Minister Lametti asked and obtained from the Quebec Superior Court, an extension to give more time for the federal government to pass Bill C-7. The government was then told it had until February 26, 2021. It has now been granted another extension for passage of the bill.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why I oppose Euthanasia (MAID)

This article highlights sections of a presentation given by Dr. Ramona Coelho on December 9, 2020.

The entire presentation is available at

My name is Dr. Ramona Coelho and I’m a family doctor. I’m originally from Montreal. My husband is a surgeon and epidemiologist. We have 5 children.

My practice in Montreal was largely comprised of patients who I cared for in their homes. My patients were homebound because of their illness or disability.

In 2012 we moved to London, Ontario and I have been practicing medicine here since. I work in one of the poorer areas of London. My practice is largely comprised of people living with disabilities, as well as refugees, men out of prison and other persons who find themselves on the margins.

Right now in Canada the government is trying to pass bill C7, which among other things, is a bill where if you are wanting to commit suicide and are ill or have a disability, a medical doctor will give you a lethal injection within 90 days of request.

I personally find it appalling that there is a suicide completion track just for my type of patients…

I share the story of my darling home care patient Charles, who had muscular dystrophy, so he was disfigured. He had no muscle mass and so you could see his bones and his face looked very different. I sent him to the hospital once as he needed admission and the neurology and internal medicine doctors fought in front of him about who would have to take him. My husband who worked at the hospital went down and tried to intervene for Charles. Charles left the hospital. He told me that those doctors made him feel terrible and that he’d rather die than go back to the hospital…

I had a 70 year old lady who was asking me to die and drastically losing weight for months and it took months to learn that her son who had moved in to help her, wasn’t feeding her and was stealing her money. If this bill existed at that time, her death, which the medical community would have facilitated, would have been driven by elder neglect and financial abuse…

Society’s belief in the inherent virtue and ethics of the profession has been the necessary basis of the physician-patient trust. Would you trust your doctor if you thought they didn’t care about your safety and well-being?

We must for the sake our patients continue to only offer them what is good.

I end by offering you a simple story. It is the story of my patient who came to me for MAID. She was a fiery lady and talented artist. She had survived breast cancer but than it returned. In her brain, in her bones… she realized after some frank discussions that her prognosis was very poor. I have to admit I was extremely overwhelmed by her request to receive MAID. I started the conversation by fully disclosing as I would always that I would never be able to journey that road with her as I didn’t think it was good for society or her and not for anyone. She took those words in, processing them. I than stumbled through what felt like hollow arguments.. I said she was not in pain right now and we would try to ensure she didn’t have pain. I explained that palliative care was amazing with excellent pain control with pet, music and art therapy. She replied that her best friend had died in agony in the States. I said we could try to find meaning for her days and maybe there was something she could leave behind for others, like her art. She said her fatigue and the weakness in her hands made her useless and she didn’t have anything left to leave the world and was angry she couldn’t paint. I told her that maybe this was the time to seek closure with friends and family and could we explore that. She told me that she was very angry at her family as they treated her badly because of her increased irritability. She also shared that she would daily sit on a park bench and hate all the people walking around her, living while she knew she was being robbed of her chance at life at a young age. She had a cancer doctor at this point and I presumed that maybe I would never see her again. However, she kept coming back to talk. I would book her at the end of my days and give her my time. She brought an amazing gift to me in those days before she died. We talked about maybe making voice memos to describe her paintings to enrich the experience for future generations. I decreased her steroids that were meant to be shrinking her brain tumour as they were adding to her irritability and anger. Also I suggested moving her steroids to the morning and that improved her sleep and quality of life. We switched her antidepressant. In the end, my patient decided to die at home, naturally and not by MAID. 

Patients need our time. They also need our efforts, our creativity our perseverance and our strength. A lethal injection is easy and doesn’t require any creativity. It is met out one by one and there can be no failures as those who die will never tell.

Doctors took an oath to restore life and provide care, and we do well when we keep that oath.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lawyers’ Joint Statement – An Open Letter To Parliament Re: Bill C-7

No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces
MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life….
Bill C-7 thus affirms a very dangerous stereotype:
that a life with a disability may not be worth living.


October 14, 2020

Dear Members of Parliament and Senators:

The Law is a Teacher. The ideas enshrined in our laws represent our societal standards, shape and transmit our cultural attitudes, and inform our individual perceptions. While just laws uphold and reinforce our core democratic commitments, unjust laws erode them. We are deeply concerned that Bill C-7 will have the latter effect.

In its current form, Bill C-7 undermines our constitutional commitment to the equal and inherent value of all lives, as well as our ongoing struggle to meet Canada’s international commitments to persons with disabilities. Perhaps most concerning of all, Bill C-7 eliminates key statutory protections that help protect those considering MAiD[1] from being euthanized against their true wishes.

Bill C-7 Reinforces Negative Stereotypes of Canadians with Disabilities

By legalizing euthanasia for people who are not dying, Bill C-7 does not just expand MAiD; it fundamentally redefines it. No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life – but only the life of someone with an illness or disability, for whom death itself is rendered an appropriate therapeutic response to suffering. 

Bill C-7 is therefore premised on the notion that suffering associated with a non-life-threatening illness or disability is worse than any other type of suffering, and should, in some cases, be alleviated through a premature death – with social, legal, and governmental support. Bill C-7 thus affirms a very dangerous stereotype: that a life with a disability may not be worth living. 

When the law entrenches – even implicitly – the idea that life with a disability is an inferior existence, it exacerbates systemic discrimination and undercuts social support for one’s choice to live with dignity (especially if such support is perceived as costly or burdensome). It also erodes our societal commitment to the full inclusion and equal participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian life. 

This commitment is fundamental to both our constitutional order and established international norms. Singling out non-life-threatening illness and disability as the eligibility criteria for assisted death undermines section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protection against state action that directly or indirectly stigmatizes persons living with illness or disability, or that would “write people off because of their impairment”. 

For other groups protected by section 15, the obstacles they face are understood to be externally caused: the result of social barriers, insufficient supports, and public stereotypes. In those contexts, the law seeks to eliminate external causes of suffering but would never countenance eliminating the person who is suffering as a legal solution. This is as it should be. 

We are deeply troubled, however, that this is not so with respect to disability under Bill C-7. If this Bill passes, Canadian law will explicitly single out life with an illness or disability as the only kind of existence which justifies state-sponsored termination. The Bill therefore contradicts a core premise underlying our entire legal system: that all lives have equal value.

Bill C-7 Undermines our International Commitments 

Canada’s commitments to the equality and inclusion of persons with disabilities are also enshrined internationally, and we are especially concerned that MAiD is being prioritized when the government “still lags behind in the implementation of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”.[2] Our governments have yet to address this and other major concerns stressed by the UN Special Rapporteur after her visit to Canada over a year ago, including her comment that she is “extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective.” This was before Bill C-7 was introduced.[3] We share the Special Rapporteur’s concerns, which will only be compounded by Bill C-7’s drastic reconstruction of MAiD.

Offering MAiD in the absence of guaranteed access to meaningful supports and care options which could alleviate a person’s suffering presents as cruel.  This situation, already facing many Canadians, also undermines the rationale of free choice upon which the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter decriminalized the blanket prohibition of MAiD in the first place. A choice cannot be truly free if there is no realistic alternative: it is a Hobson’s choice, the illusion of choice. 

Responding to Truchon

We appreciate that, with Bill C-7, Parliament is responding to the findings of the trial judge of the Quebec Superior Court in Truchon. However, that judgment focussed primarily on the Charter rights of the two plaintiffs who were seeking MAiD, and not the Charter rights of those who could be negatively impacted by the far-reaching effects of a widely-expanded euthanasia regime. 

A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is the protection of society, especially society’s most vulnerable. Reasonable limits on such exceptional exercises of individual liberty as access to MAiD are justified when they conflict with society’s fundamental commitments and place the lives of vulnerable Canadians at risk. Societal interests were largely ignored in Truchon because of the court’s narrow reading of the law’s purpose, but this does not render them irrelevant. Parliament’s institutional role is distinct from the judiciary’s; Parliament cannot legislate solely in the interests of those seeking ready access to MAiD. Dialogue, rather than dictation, between the judicial and legislative branches is required to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck: one which respects the Charter rights of everyone, including those with disabilities who choose to live with dignity.

Bill C-7 Significantly Reduces Protections in Place for Vulnerable Persons

If enacted, Bill C-7 will jettison important safeguards that were put in place to protect the vulnerable. In this regard, this Bill goes much further than responding to the concerns of the court in Truchon.

Nothing in that decision called for the elimination of such important safeguards as the current 10-day ‘reflection period’ to ensure that a MAiD request is fully considered, nor the requirement for two independent witnesses to corroborate the validity of a request. Under Bill C-7, only one witness will be needed, including, for the first time, someone who is paid to provide health or personal care services to the patient. This amendment raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest and/or undue influence, especially in cases where the witness may be a patient’s sole translator and/or care provider. 

Similarly, Truchon never even considered the allowance of MAiD by advance requests, which Bill C-7 will permit, in certain cases, with minimal guidelines or safeguards. As noted by the Expert Panel Working Group of the Council of Canadian Academies, permitting advance requests for MAiD introduces the risk that some patients may be euthanized against their wishes, and there are no preventative measures capable of eliminating this risk.[4] Since that report, data from Quebec has revealed that over 300 patients who made a written request for MAiD subsequently changed their mind. This risk is elevated insofar as Bill C-7 provides that advance requests may be carried out on incapacitated patients unless they positively demonstrate refusal “by words, sounds or gestures”; and yet, “involuntary” resistance “made in response to contact” will not suffice to halt the procedure. How many patients might be unable to express such a change of mind after making an advance request, due to a loss in communicative or other capacities? Bill C-7 thus opens the Criminal Code to allowing, for the first time, the possibility of non-consensual homicide of an innocent victim.  

We must prioritize our commitment to the equal and inherent dignity of all human life

In its current form, Bill C-7 reinforces the notion that life with a disability may not be worth living or protecting, an attitude that will influence the thinking of millions of Canadians and others around the world who are facing difficult decisions in the allocation of limited resources.

History remembers how a society values the lives of its citizens, especially in difficult circumstances. We currently find ourselves in such a moment. Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed several troubling gaps in the long-term care systems that elderly Canadians and those with disabilities depend on. Yet we are encouraged that Canadians have united in response to both COVID-19 and these deficiencies with a renewed commitment to protecting human life, no matter the cost. This commitment underlies both our response to the current global pandemic and our health-care system, and it must remain the foundation for Canada’s approach to MAiD.  

Respectfully submitted,

  1. Derek Ross, LL.B., LL.M, Lawyer (London, ON)

  2. Robert Reynolds, B.C.L., Lawyer (Montreal, QC)

  3. Hon. David C. Onley, CM, OOnt

  4. Benjamin Ferland, J.D., Lawyer (Edmonton, AB) 

  5. Sarah Mix-Ross, M.S.W., J.D., Lawyer (London, ON)

  6. Ruth A.M. Ross, LL.B., Lawyer (London, ON)

  7. Daniel Santoro, LL.B., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  8. Deina Warren, LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer (Oakville, ON)

  9. John Sikkema, J.D., LL.M., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  10. Geoffrey Trotter, LL.B., Lawyer (Vancouver, B.C.)

  11. André Schutten, LL.B., LL.M, Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  12. Philip Fourie, B.L.C.,LL.B., M.Env.Mgmt. (Dist.)

  13. John Lockhart, Lawyer (Mississauga, ON)

  14. Albertos Polizogopoulos, LL.B., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  15. Faye Sonier, LL.B., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  16. Jad Debs, J.D., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  17. Tabitha Ewert, J.D., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  18. Edward Choi, JD, LLM, LLB, BBA, Lawyer (Markham, ON)

  19. Walter Thiessen, Lawyer (Winnipeg, MB)

  20. Shane B. Janzen, Archbishop – ACCC/TAC (Victoria, BC)

  21. Jason E. Tremblay, Law Student (Ottawa, ON)

  22. Marie-Louise Fast, LLB (Richmond, BC)

  23. Daniel J. Mol, Barrister & Solicitor (Alberta)

  24. Luke A. Johnson, LL.B., Lawyer (Surrey, BC)

  25. Bruce Bos, Lawyer (Guelph, ON)

  26. Jeannette Savoie, LLB, LLM, Lawyer (Oak Point, NB)

  27. Danny Gurizzan, Lawyer, i.B.B.A., J.D., L.L.M.

  28. John C. Knibbe, Lawyer (Calgary, AB)

  29. Elias Munshya, Lawyer (Calgary, Alberta)

  30. Shawn M. Smith, Lawyer (White Rock, B.C.)

  31. Gerald Kent, retired lawyer (Cranbrook, B.C.)

  32. Christopher Hiebert, B.A., M.A., J.D., Lawyer, (Niagara, ON)

  33. Winston Sayson, JD, QC (retired, Richmond, BC) 

  34. Stephen C. Woodworth, LLB., Retired (Kitchener, ON)

  35. Timothy Stonhouse, Lawyer (Victoria, BC)

  36. Earl Phillips, Q.C., (Vancouver, BC)

  37. Jonathan Ng, Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  38. Eric Vandergriendt, J.D., Lawyer (Surrey, BC)

  39. Joshua Tong, J.D., Pastor (Richmond Hill, ON)

  40. Michael Menear, LLB (London, ON)

  41. Andrew Davis, LL.B, Lawyer (Regina, SK)

  42. Kenneth Koprowski, B.A., LL.B., Deputy Judge O.S.C.J.(Retired) (London, ON)

  43. Elizabeth Swarbrick, LLB, lawyer (Almonte, ON)

  44. Suzanne Chiodo, Lecturer in Law, Oriel College, University of Oxford (UK)

  45. Coralei Still, B.R., B.Sc., B.Sc.N., M.A., J.D. Candidate 2021 (Surrey, BC)

  46. Jeffrey S. Lowe, B. Comm, LLB, Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  47. Robert David Onley, J.D., Lawyer, (Ottawa, ON)

  48. Thomas M.J. Bateman, Professor of Political Science, St Thomas University Fredericton (NB)

  49. Shawn Knights, Barrister and Solicitor (St. Catharines, ON)

  50. Stephen Penney, Solicitor (Cambridge, ON)

  51. Frank de Walle, Lawyer (Lethbridge, AB)

  52. Jay Spiro, Lawyer (North Vancouver, BC)

  53. Kelicia Letlow-Peroune (Toronto, Ontario)

  54. Faith Paul, Lawyer; (Toronto, ON)

  55. Renée Short, LLB, Lawyer, (Airdrie, AB)

  56. Ubanna Okebugwu, LL.B, Lawyer (Pickering, ON)

  57. Walter Kubitz Q.C., Barrister and Solicitor (Calgary, AB)

  58.  Fr. Evo DiPierro, J.D. (Dalhousie) 2002, Retired Member of N.S. Bar Society (Louisbourg, NS)

  59. Patrick Delaney, J.D. candidate, (Fredericton, NB)

  60. Christopher Taucar, Lawyer and University Lecturer (Vancouver, BC)

  61. Barbara Wallace, LLB, Lawyer (Waterloo, ON)

  62. Kristin Debs, Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  63. Richard M. Harding, B.A. J.D., Lawyer (Retired) (Calgary, AB)

  64. K.R. Davidson, LL.B, MBA, Lawyer (St. Catharines, ON)

  65. Alexandre N. Khouzam, LL.L., DIPL. D.N., D.E.S., Avocat, Conseiller Juridique (Montreal, Quebec)

  66. Philip E. Carr, LL.B., retired lawyer (Calgary, AB)

  67. Paul D. Mack, B.A., LL.B, LL.M., Lawyer (Oshawa, Ontario)

  68. John E Humphries, Lawyer (Peachland, B.C.)

  69. Stephanie Fong, J.D., J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  70. Michael D. Carter, Lawyer (White Rock, BC)

  71. Matthew J. Marquardt, J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  72. Joseph P. Hamon B.A. LL.B. C.S. Cert.CFM (Combermere, ON)

  73. Jennifer Park, J.D. (Coquitlam, BC)  

  74. Michael H. Murray, Lawyer (London, ON)

  75. Randy Schliemann, B.Sc., J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  76. Rhys Volkenant, J.D., Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  77. Gleb Malinovsky, Lawyer (Okotoks, AB)

  78. Brian L. Prill, LLB, LLM, Lawyer (Mississauga, ON)

  79. Ken Volkenant, Lawyer (Surrey, BC)

  80. Brayden Volkenant, Lawyer (Surrey, BC)

  81. Tyler Koverko, J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  82. Esther O. Abraham, Lawyer (Retired) (Mississauga, ON)

  83. Michelle Hol, B.Sc., JD, Lawyer (Goderich, Ontario)

  84. Shawn Leclerc, J.D., Lawyer (Lethbridge, AB)

  85. Crystal Law, J.D., Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  86. Philip Watts J.D., LL.M., Lawyer (Winnipeg, MB)

  87. Tina Z. Wang, J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  88. Garifalia Milousis, J.D., Articling Student (London, ON)

  89. Moyosore Balogun, LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer (London, ON)

  90. Leah Baxter, Law Student (Windsor, Ontario)

  91. Rebecca Blain, M.A., J.D., Student at Law (Calgary, AB)

  92. Brendan Bernakevitch, J.D., Lawyer (Regina, SK)

  93. Nicole Scheidl, LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  94. Vivian Clemence, J.D., Lawyer (Timmins, ON)

  95. Jeremy Taitinger, LLB (Edmonton, AB) 

  96. Andrea Dickinson, Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  97. Evelyn Lee, Law Student (Toronto, ON)

  98. Peter Luttmann, J.D., Lawyer (Windsor, NS)

  99. Henry W. Sykes QC, LLB, LLM, Lawyer (Calgary, AB)

  100. Shannon Peddlesden, JD, Student-at-Law (Calgary, AB)

  101. Jean Rhéaume, LL.B., LL.M., LL.D., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  102. Czarina Pacaide, J.D., Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  103. Monika Hanna, LL.B., Lawyer (Toronto, Ontario)

  104. David Gileff, Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  105. Jason Poettcker M.A., J.D., Lawyer (Winnipeg, MB)

  106. Barry W. Bussey, PhD., Lawyer (ON)

  107. John W. Veldkamp, LLB, Lawyer (Edmonton, AB)

  108. Ola Oraka, Law Student (ON)

  109. Geoffrey F. Cauchi, LL.B., CIC.C, Lawyer (Mississauga, ON)

  110. Donald E. L. Hutchinson, B.A., J.D., Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  111. Luke J. Effa, J.D., Lawyer (Vernon, BC)

  112. Akingbade S. Oluwarinu, LLB., LLM, Lawyer (Victoria, BC)

  113. Mike Jehu, M.A., J.D. Candidate (North York, ON)

  114. Nathan Wiebe, J.D., Lawyer (Edmonton, AB) 

  115. Kevin Marshall, Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  116. Kenneth Friesen, LL.B., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  117. Peter Trieu, Lawyer (Calgary, AB)

  118. Rachelle Pearce, J.D., Lawyer (Toronto, ON)

  119. Robert D Evans LL.B., lawyer and judge (retired) (Edmonton, AB)

  120. Brian Derrah, BT, BA, MA, LLB, retired lawyer (Mt. Pleasant, NB)

  121. George R. Ingram, Lawyer (Cambridge, ON)

  122. Savannah van Dongen, J.D. (Portage la Prairie, MB)

  123. Joel Yinger, J.D., Lawyer (Brantford, ON)

  124. Madlen Bauer, Law Student (Winnipeg, MB)

  125. Philip J. Dougan, Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)

  126. Andrew Lawson, Lawyer (Morinville, AB)

  127. Chantel Morrison, JD, Lawyer (Mississauga, ON)

  128. Kevin Kok, Law Student (London, ON)

  129. Darren L Richards, Lawyer (Edmonton, AB)

  130. Raylene Rosenau, Student-at-Law (Olds, AB)

  131. Molly Naber-Sykes, QC (Calgary, AB)

  132. Daniel N. Tangjerd, Lawyer (Saskatoon, SK)

  133. Adora Nwabuoku, Lawyer (Mississauga, ON)

  134. Waldy Derksen, Lawyer (Winnipeg, MB)

  135. Jennifer Suzor, Lawyer, Accredited Mediator (Windsor, ON)

  136. Jonathan Carlzon, Lawyer (Edmonton, AB)

  137. Ben Heath, B.A., J.D., Lawyer (Brampton, Ontario)

  138. Michael J. Collins, Lawyer (Ottawa, ON)

  139. Fraser Genuis, JD., Lawyer (Edmonton, AB) 

  140. Vicky Chan, J.D. (Toronto, ON)

  141. Melissa R. Scott, B.A., J.D., Lawyer (London, ON)

  142. Stanley Mayes, Lawyer (Chatham, ON)

  143. Michel Racicot, Lawyer,  B.A., LL.L., E.P.B.A. (Columbia U.) (Sainte-Thérèse, QC)

  144. George Gunnink, Lawyer (Surrey, BC)

  145. Yue (Roger) Song, LLM, J.D., Lawyer (Calgary, AB)

  146. James Simpson, J.D., Articling Student (London, ON)

  147. Adam Van Noort, JD, Lawyer (Surrey, BC)


[1] In Canada, euthanasia/physician-assisted death (“medical assistance in dying” or “MAiD”) was legalized in 2016 and involves the termination of a patient’s life at the patient’s request, typically through a lethal injection. It is not to be confused with the voluntary withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, which has always been legal. MAiD remains a controversial practice, and is opposed by many in the international medical community.

[2] United Nations, End of Mission Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, Ms. Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, on her visit to Canada (Ottawa: 12 April 2019)

[3] The Special Rapporteur’s final report, published after the Truchon decision, repeated these concerns and also noted that “[t]he recent judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec might put additional pressure on persons with disabilities who are in a vulnerable situation due to insufficient community support. As many persons with disabilities said during the visit, they are being offered the ‘choice’ between a nursing home and medical assistance in dying.”

[4] Council of Canadian Academies, “The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying: The Expert Panel Working Group on Advance Requests for MAID” (Ottawa, 2018), at 171-173, online: <>. 

Statement is available at the Christian Legal Fellowship website.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

502 Live birth abortions from 2014 to 2018

by Patricia Maloney Tuesday, June 30, 2020By Patricia Maloney

Live birth abortions from Statistics Canada: Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn [P96.4]

I’ve reported on these Stats Canada’s livebirth abortions, and CIHI’s livebirth abortions, many times before.

Statistics Canada’s and the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) livebirth abortion numbers are never the same. I’ve never been able to get an answer as to why their numbers are always different.

We still don’t know why these late term abortions result in babies born alive. We still don’t know what happens to these little souls when it happens. We do know that they died because they are reported as a death by Stats Canada. Are these tiny humans held and comforted as they wait to die? Are they thrown into the garbage? How much do they suffer? Did anyone ask them what they wanted?

These livebirth abortions are shameful. They are a tragedy. And they continue to happen year after year.

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Stats, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dr. Catherine Frazee – Justice Committee Parliamentary Hearing -Bill C-7 begs the question, why persons with disabilities?

Sunday, November 15, 2020

Catherine Frazee, Professor Emerita, Ryerson University School of Disability Studies.
I speak today from the Mi’kma’ki the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people. I am a settler here bound by treaties of peace and friendship, and mindful that we are, all of us, treaty people.

Madame Chair, I am sorry for any discomfort that my words may trigger. But with so little time I must speak frankly and without reserve.

Bill C-7 begs the question, why us, why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered, or painful, or in decline? 

Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life?

Everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, a shot gun carried out into the woods?

Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

Surely the answer rises up in all of our throats. That’s not who we are!

We dial 911. We pull you back from the ledge. And yes, we restrain you in your moment of crisis, autonomy be damned.

We will get to the heart of the problem that drove you out into the woods. And we will beckon you back toward a life that is bearable, unless your suffering is medical or disability-related.

Then and only then there will be a special pathway to assisted death.

Universality is the bedrock of our healthcare commitments.

Why then does Bill C-7 depart so radically, dropping the threshold for MAID for one social group to bear the trauma of suicide at catastrophic rates, but not for others who suffer and die before their time.

What is it about disability that makes this okay?

Why such breathless confidence that Bill C-7 will bring no harm to disability communities?

Honestly, I do not know.

But as we marshal our evidence for the legal challenges that will follow if this Bill is passed, this is what we hear in reply.

Some say that the suffering of a disabling medical condition is unlike other suffering, somehow more cruel than the overwhelming pain of any healthy, non-disabled person who turns to premature death by suicide. But there is no evidence to support this.

Some say that the suffering of disability defies all hope, as it did, they claim for Jean Truchon. But the deprivations of institutional life that choked out his will to live were not an inevitable consequence of disability. Did we learn nothing from Archie Rolland’s harrowing struggle and his final cri de coeur before assisted death? “It’s not the ALS that’s killing me,” he said.

Some say that the suffering of disabling conditions falls in the domain of medicine. But the agonizing quest of Sean Tagert teaches us otherwise. Let’s not forget, he called the bureaucratic denials of needed care a death sentence, just days before his assisted death.

Some will fall back on the mantra of choice. They say that not everyone wants to live that way. But not everyone wants to live with the indignities of poverty, either. No one wants to live under threat of racial, or gendered, or colonial violence. No one wants to live hungry, incarcerated, abject, or alone.

Madame Chair, will our lawmakers carve out other shortcuts to assisted death for those who do live in such conditions? Or will you rise to the defence of human rights?

If the latter, I respectfully urge that you start with us, for our equality is, right now, on the line.

Thank you.
You can watch other videos at This post published from the Euthanasia prevention Coalition blog.
Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Euthanasia – Panacea or Pandora’s Box?

We learned from Health Canada’s  First Annual Report on Maid (Euthanasia) deaths  released in July that 13.7% of Canadians who died by euthanasia gave isolation or loneliness as one of their reasons for requesting euthanasia.  How sad that their feelings of loneliness could not be eased so that perhaps these individuals felt that they mattered to someone.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New website about the abortion pill reversal process launched by Alliance for Life Ontario

Launch of

Alliance for Life Ontario is pleased to announce the launch of its latest educational website, “” and also the beginning of the 2020 Reaching Minds Through Media Social Media Campaign.

[Every pro-life person or organization] “each of us is bound by God’s laws to respect the dignity of each human being from God’s creation until his death.”

~ Judy Brown

We are very happy to have completed such an essential website which will inform the public of little known facts regarding the abortion pill reversal procedure and how it can offer women a Second Chance to hold their little ones in their arms, even after taking the abortion pill (Mifepristone), the “first step” of the Mifegymiso abortion protocol. 

We know that being unexpectedly pregnant can be scary and confusing, but when we feel scared and confused it is no time to be making such a monumental and tragic decision as undergoing a chemical abortion. Our message to these women young and not so young is, “Don’t let your fear decide yours or your baby’s future”. If a young woman has taken the first pill already, she can call 1 888 612 3960 within 24-72 hours or visit the Live Chat on the site. If she has undergone the whole procedure, she can still call the 1 888 line or our pregnancy help line at 1 866 966 6411 or any of the groups listed on our page offering post-abortion help or again she can visit the Live Chat port on the site.

We have endeavoured through written word and video to assure the women visiting our site who are thinking of taking Mifegymiso, have started the process or sadly completed it, that there is help for them wherever they are in this abortion process. We have provided factual information:

  • Regarding the abortion pill process itself
  • The harm that many Canadian women and others have suffered after undergoing a chemical abortion
  • We have questioned whether women considering a chemical abortion are receiving full information on the current Consent form or Patient Medical Information sheet regarding Mifegymiso
  • The abortion pill reversal process
  • Referenced proof that the abortion pill reversal procedure is a success currently 64%-68% of the time
  • Personal testimony from women who have undergone abortion pill reversal
  • Pregnancy support contact information
  • Post abortion help contact information
  • Abortion Pill Reversal contact information
  • A LiveChat portal on the abortion pill reversal site

Informative videos with medical doctors who have practiced the abortion pill reversal technique .


Posted in Abortion Pill reversal process | Leave a comment