Official report of Medical Assistance in Dying cases reveal troubling story of elderly woman who wanted palliative care was euthanized at the request of her husband.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
In my most recent report on Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, I noted that the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership is sharply criticizing Canada’s MAID program, which is now linked to organ donation, with one top official calling it a “strange new horror” and a cautionary example for other countries.
Now, even more disturbing revelations about the program are being made, which underscore the correctness of every concern expressed about this program.
Ontario’s chief coroner has released two new reports from the province’s interdisciplinary MAID Death Review Committee, examining same‑ or next‑day provision of MAID and the use of waivers of final consent. The committee’s mandate was to look beyond individual files to the patterns they reveal.
Several of the cases reveal that the process for some included coercion and rushed decisions. The first case related to this report that caught my eye involved “Mrs. B”:
An elderly woman in Canada was euthanized only hours after telling doctors she wanted to live and receive hospice care instead.
She had become very ill after heart surgery and was being cared for at home by her elderly husband, who doctors noted was experiencing “caregiver… pic.twitter.com/d3pnWUm1q9
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) January 24, 2026
Mrs. B was a woman in her 80s in Ontario who had serious complications after surgery and was being cared for at home by her elderly husband. She initially opted for palliative care and, during a MAID assessment, told an assessor she preferred palliative care because of her personal and religious values and did not want euthanasia at that time.
Her husband was documented as experiencing “caregiver burnout,” and a physician requested inpatient palliative/hospice care, but the hospice request was denied because she did not meet the criteria for end‑of‑life admission.
Once the hospice admission was declined, her husband requested an “urgent” MAiD reassessment, saying he could no longer cope with caring for her at home. This is what happened next:
A different MAiD assessor from the previous day completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout).
The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. Additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete a virtual assessment.
Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.
As Mrs. B was euthanized that night, most committee members believed the time and evaluation taken before Mrs. B’s euthanasia were insufficient, given her circumstances.
Then there is the case of Mr. C, a person with a serious illness whose MAID request and provision occurred very close together. The palliative care involvement was minimal and largely reactive, and the MAID assessor arrived while the patient was being treated with opioids.
On this same day, a MAiD practitioner arrived at the hospital to complete a MAiD eligibility assessment. The MAiD practitioner was advised by the medical care team that Mr. C had an altered cognitive state and likely had lost capacity for healthcare decisions.
Due to a previous expressed request for MAiD, the MAiD practitioner proceeded to vigorously rouse Mr. C, who opened his eyes and mouthed “yes” to the
MAiD practitioner’s inquiry of his request for MAiD. After withholding his opioid analgesia and medications for sedation for 45-minutes, Mr. C was documented to be more alert (observed to have “eyes open”). The MAiD practitioner completed the initial MAiD assessment through a series of short verbal statements (“yes”) and non-verbal (documented ‘head nods and blinking’) confirmatory responses.The MAiD practitioner facilitated a virtual second assessment, where the first MAiD practitioner was present and provided the medical history and illness trajectory. The second MAiD practitioner also found Mr. C eligible for MAiD. The provision of MAiD occurred following confirmation of final consent via “mouthing the word ‘yes’” and nodding his head in [presumed] agreeance”.
This report offers cautionary examples where, had there been better pain and symptom management, thorough mental health treatment, reduced institutional constraints, and more time, the individuals might have chosen life. Furthermore, euthanasia in these situations may been the result of other people’s choices.
But at least the healthcare is “free”.
Imagine believing that CANADA has FREE healthcare in reality after paying significant TAXES for healthcare, high number of Canadians have to travel abroad to actually get care, OR also possibly DIE waiting for care
This is Canada pic.twitter.com/yscPHqIfEa
— Melissa (@MelissaLMRogers) January 13, 2026
Once started with the terminally ill it’s a slippery slope as more and more ‘groups’ and ‘circumstances’ are included. We have a private member’s bill (not a government bill) going through Parliament for assisted dying. One of the big names pushing the bill is Charlie Falconer – Tony Blair’s sidekick. Another dodgy lawyer. And it isn’t going well.
It is now “very, very difficult” to see how the assisted dying bill could become law this year, a leading backer of the change has told BBC News.
Lord Falconer said the legislation – which has been backed by MPs – has “absolutely no hope” of passing without a “fundamental change” in the House of Lords’ approach. – Auntie
A final act of desperation?
Assisted dying: could a rarely used 1911 act help supporters override the Lords? – Guardian
As I recall the Parliament Act is only used to override the Lords for government legislation for obvious reasons. The death camp is determined to try and get their bill over the line.
Not even the mad examples in Canada and the Netherlands seems to cut any ice with them.
Yes, the problem is that it normalizes killing people in a health care setting. And this enables the extensions you refer to. You can see how its happened in Belgium, with the extension to what a previous generation would have regarded as unhappiness. It appears to have gone still further in Canada, where its ceased to be something which is made available to the terminally ill, and become a form of treatment that may be recommended and prescribed to them.
There is a reason why the Catholic Church has always regarded suicide as a sin, and why Aquinas taught that despair is a sin.
Someone I know spent a lot of time recently visiting with a dying friend, who at one point said that he did not know why he was persisting with staying alive. The reply was that it was his duty, to his family. He was doing it for them. The dying man paused for a while, and then nodded.
A dialogue that could only have occurred between men of a very previous generation. The concept of duty has vanished now. No-one of Generation X would have had any idea what he was talking about.
We should just call war “assisted dying”.
What has this story to do with climate…or even energy..?
Sadly, the progressives do more than just climate and energy. I would suggest you check out Paul Homewood’s site, but he’s running a story on fatter Polar bears…
It’s just part of the brave new world and reshaping society – just like the climate scam,or the great reset,mandatory rainbow stuff,
and currently they are trying to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia on demand in British Colombia – Canada has to defend its world leading organ transplant status in this domain.
And this case is very practical for the special interest group, as illegal organ harvesting is being replaced by by looting these people.
As there is a lot demand, we will see some interesting developments in the near future(that are currently in the conspiratorial realm) in specific DNA targeting,groups that get preferential treatment and the miracle of getting rid off old “useless eaters” .
Must be a small scary world you live in. Afraid of rainbows. On a diet of conspiracy theories.
Scary? If you’re an alarmist perhaps…
Pride rainbows taken off police cars and officers banned from march in uniform – MSN
Rainbows are for children…
Rainbow is a British children’s television series, created by Pamela Lonsdale, which ran from 16 October 1972 until 20 December 1991, made by Thames Television.
Enjoy! You’ll love Zippy, George and Bungle…
Just for you…
Simple question: what do you think of the assisted dying – euthanasia – regimes in Canada and the Netherlands and Belgium? And of the regime which is currently under consideration in the UK?
Do you think there is a problem? Or do you think its all fine and that these regimes represent a welcome increase in the rights of the dying?
Or should we conclude you are, yet again, engaging in pointless trolling?
Assisted dying has its positive and negative sides. It’s not that clear cut.
But my comment was aimed at the “great reset,mandatory rainbow stuff” – try spouting such nonsense outside of the internet and see how far you come without making a foul out of yourself.
I also never engage in trolling, pointless or not. I source all my claims from credible sites at least on par with WUWT.
I think you have to ask the question, first, how you feel about the specific situation in Canada. And Holland and Belgium for that matter, and the pending legislation in the UK. If you think its all fine then any questioning of where its come from or going to will seem empty headed conspiracy theory.
What do you think about them?
I think there is a real question to answer here. I don’t think the current situation in either Canada or Belgium is ethically acceptable. I think its striking, and requires explanation, how the original concept has become extended into this ethically unacceptable set of practices.
I also think that the way the legislative process has been managed in the UK (the promise of safeguards which are then withdrawn, the restriction of consultation… etc) is incompatible with any claims that the motivation of those driving ii is pure benevolence.
My view is that for a physician to prescribe doses of opiates which will shorten life of a terminally ill patient may be justified. There are cases where lower doses will not relieve pain, and there is no reason why someone who is terminally ill should be made to suffer by having relief withheld. As used to be done, in case they should die addicted! That was terrible. It now seems to have stopped from the cases I have seen.
I have also known cases where the patient at a certain point says they have had enough, and don’t want yet more dialysis or transfusion or other even more heroic measures. This sometimes happens when they have hung on to complete something that lets them feel they can go in peace once its done, And compliance with this is also ethically fine.
But this is completely different from what is reported to be happening in Canada and Belgium, and is also completely different from what is likely to result from the draft UK legislation.
There is a real question to be answered, and it is how legislation intended to allow the dying more control over their dying process morphs into clinical practice which is the opposite of that. And why the proponents of the legislation and practice are both so determined to defend the ethically unacceptable situations and practices, and so dishonest about what they are actually advocating. You don’t have to be paranoid to see that there is something here that requires an explanation. Which it never gets.
My view of the UK legislation is that it needs to be dropped entirely, and the process started again from scratch, starting with a clear definition of what exactly the objective is. Then maybe the UK would get a regime which would deliver the supposed goal. Right now it won’t. What its liable to get as a result of the present process is something which late 19th and early 20th century exterminationists of both left and right would have welcomed as a first step.
More of them than you think there were, and more progressives, and more surprising names among them than you realize.
1 ) You are a troll.
You have gathered so many informations here, there was so much exposure of shady things, fabrications , lies and wrong predictions including your knowledge about the former ice age and the 42 experts who met at Brown University and wrote an open letter to Nixon on dec 3rd 1972 to cover the Arctic with soot to save us from said ice age.
Yet you didn’t budge an inch, immune to any information.
You still write and act like a noob zealot.
So if you know where the root of all evil lies just look into the next mirror.
2) I’m doing that stuff on a regular basis.
As result of my religion fagots like you don’t dare to say a word
as you only dare to criticize your own- but you won’t dare to say a word without approval of your priests.
Not that it actually matters, as 95% of guys like you can fight,
and even those who train some martial arts usually don’t know how to streetfight.
I am the one in the subway station mocking the shit out of you, and you don’t dare to talk back and look like a dog on the floor or smile nervously.
So much about little scary world my littledhimmi.
And while II belong to the group who commit 90%+ of crimes
against rainbow people in Europe(in the USA It’s blacks) – Plottwist – I have been one of the very few of us who massively criticizes our violence against gay and other people.
3) While I don’t mind gay people I absolutely oppose the Rainbow & LGBT shit.
Now we come to the conspiratorial side.
As you are besides being a Judas also a low IQ Ill write slowly so you can understand.
Throughout history there neve was such a Rainbow thing.
Nowhere.
And if something appears all of a sudden everywhere that never existed before – then it is a global agenda.
Especially when politicians and MSM suddenly lose their shit and push it like crazy =
typical leftie cultural imperialism.
It always originates in the US and is then being pushed onto the rest of the west, since the hippie era, the feminism,DEI, (the manufactured consensus works exactly the same way as all the fake wars).
Now – how would a natural gay movement look like?
It would differ by from country to country.
There would be no LGBT, but GL ort GBL or GT – but actually none of it, as most of these groups would never unite and stay on their own(obvious, as Gays and Lesbians are the most polar opposite and straight)
and even if they’d partly or all unite they would never be LGBT or rainbow,
as this Acronym only works in English and pretty much every other country has a name for gays that does not start with G.
So you’d have something like VRKN ,LPGT or whatever.
And they would have their own specific flag-design.
Sadly you are too dumb to see the obvious and too much
of a Judas and Coward to follow through even if you could fathom. this obvious stuff on your own.
When the rainbows are mutilating and sterilizing kids….
From the About page:
“I’m not dead yet.”
‘I told you I was ill…’
Spike Milligan’s gravestone quip is nation’s favourite epitaph – DM
” It’s just a flesh wound”
And not to forget “I’m feeling better”…good old Holy Grail…
You’re not. You’ll be stone dead in a few minutes.
“I don’t want to go on the cart!”
“Oh don’t be such a baby!”
Not sure how this ever made it to WUWT but it certainly pressed my buttons.
As a practicing vet for over 50 years, often when putting some animal down for humane reasons people would say ‘Would it not be good if we could do the same to people’.
Disagree.
People need good health care and excellent palliation.
They need to be taught the Natural Law and stick by it rather than have to re learn it by fiat.
In NSW when the ‘Assisted Dying Act ‘ came in a sweetener was that palliation would be doubled.
After the election this did not happen.
Its cheaper to euthanise than palliate both animals and people.
In Canada there was a case of a euthanasia advocate having to end her life early because of the lack of adequate palliation.
Its a just act to kill an animal as long as it is done humanely, under the Natural Law as well as statute.
Its still just to use the principle of double effect to control pain in people to control suffering
even if the meds may be at dangerous to life levels.
These debates are dominated by people who have seen their closest die in horrible ways at the hand of doctors where they should have had better treatment.
Most of the real cases involve serious mental illness,addictions, loneliness, chronic pain and fear of a dystopian future.
Doctors killing their patients to cure or treat their disease is seen now as some panacea.
For the protection of patients we need a register of doctors who are able and prepared to give adequate palliation and government support to allow them to do so.
Just to throw this in that means base load power, a strong industrial base, cattle that are not being starved of the microbiota that keeps them healthy and produce high quality protein and a dedicated pharmaceutical industry prepared to develop palliatives at a reasonable cost.
my mother with cancer was in Pal care I stayed by her morphia tolerance/pain levels increase but doses didnt appear to be increased enough I had to call nurses repeatedly even then Ports come free doses go other than INto the patient. 2weeks of pure hell as she managed to stay alive despite no drips and nil by mouth . it was pure hell for her and me . I WILL be listing for VAD in aus when I feel the need is close at least here its a more stringent procedure and unless utterly incapable it IS self administered . we can provide a gentler passing for our pets we also SHOULD have the right for ourselves OUR choice no one elses.. that said its easy enough to stockpile meds of many types and DIY and many people DO just that
This has happened to a number of friends.
Palliative care units, where they actually build them, have come a long way since then.
My anger is directed to the fact that there are plenty of drugs that leave the mind clear but abolish pain which we use in animals and can be obtained easily on the streets that were not used widely in palliation.
People widely self medicate with them.
Fear of a likewise death, as in your experience, or people not giving a shit due to chaotic nursing practices then kicks in after seeing your significant beloved one die horribly.
So someone ends up having to kill you in VAD.
Soylent Green will be the next step I assume…
Yes, we shoot horses….but for valid medical reasons, not just for the convenience of the owner. It’s been legal in the US for decades to “pull the plug” on pts being artificially assisted with hi tech mechanical treatments after the case has been reviewed by family & designated consultants..A similar system could be employed for a more general euthanasia right.
There will always be potential pitfalls…Right now, we can agree that the 95y/o with stage IV, very painful pancreatic cancer has a miserable life with very poor prognosis, and should be assisted in a humane death…but pretty soon there will be no more 95y/o’s with P Ca left and the next worst group will be the 65y/o women with breast ca,.so, down with them….Continue the argument ad absurdum to find that before you know it, the group suffering the most is the 12y/o little girls who don’t have blonde hair & blue eyes…”Suffering” is relative and not a legitimate criterion for decision making.
It’s not much of a leap from murdering the unborn to murdering the living.
Maybe we should stop murdering animals too?
Would you give yourself AIDS to stop your immune system from murdering trillions of microbes daily?
Maybe we should stop murdering plants, too.
When you put the State first, the collective, it always follows that the individual suffers. The statists believe the individual exists to serve the State, instead of the State existing to serve the individual.
Also when the collective reigns supreme, there is little to no accountability and responsibility for its actions – which are always cloaked in language like “for the greater good” even when atrocities are being committed.
Too many Canadians now believe in the collective being supreme to the individual.
There’s a time and place for everything but when a person says no to euthanasia their wish should be honored.
Absolutely. I don’t understand how things have gone awry in Canada or the Netherlands, but in all the US States there’s both a strong emphasis on the individual’s wishes and a time frame where it’s clear the person is dying. There are paths where that can be abused or really isn’t adequate and I’m not certain myself how they should be handled.
Typically there are rules like less than six months to live and the drugs must be self-administered. However, in diseases like ALS, one may not be able to self administer, and in dementia someone who recognizes they’re doomed may forget their commitment to a peaceful death or may be deemed of unsound mind.
So even in states where MAiD is available, there is more to do wrt to protecting people and their rights.
When the gov’t becomes one of the top 10 leading causes of death, you have a serious problem.
I’m an active supporter of allowing MAiD in New Hampshire. In testimony in Concord’s state house and elsewhere, I’ve heard of some of these disquieting issues from Canada. I don’t see the same happening here, and from what I can tell, they have not happened in states like Oregon and Vermont.
Here’s one story from the town next to me showing what happens when MAiD isn’t available.
Testimony of Eric Werme, Sutton
In support of HB 254, AN ACT relative to end of life options
I expect this bill will bring strong opposition from the NH Coalition for Suicide Prevention. Their concern appears to be that the passage of this bill will legitimize or encourage young people to give in to their suicidal urges. It’s not clear to me how this bill would be a significant threat given all the challenges and obstacles it brings. So be it.
I’m here to claim that rejecting this bill will mean just the opposite to the people near the end of their lives and also to their spouses, family members, and friends.
In November 2022 news media reported on an apparent murder-suicide in New London, one town north of my home in Sutton. The NH Attorney General’s office soon reported that “law enforcement officers responded to a home on Shaker Street in New London after receiving a call from the homeowner. Inside the home, police found the deceased body of Peggy Brown (age 73). The homeowner, Douglas Lyon (age 78) was found deceased outside the home. Ms. Brown and Mr. Lyon were domestic partners who lived together at the Shaker Road home.” The medical examiner concluded the manner of the deaths were homicide and suicide.
Thoughts that this was a crime of passion were soon squelched when reporters found Lyon had a long history of civic involvement in New London. He had been a town selectman, the former chair of the board of trustees at New London Hospital. a vice president at Colby-Sawyer College, and was the sitting chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I did not know either of them, nor have I talked with the family, but I’m confident this is a story we’ve heard before. One spouse is very sick, probably close to the end of life. The other spouse is getting too frail to provide care for either of them. If Medical Aid in Dying were an option, there could well be a different outcome, but the “murder” is committed to provide “Aid in Dying” and the “suicide” is truly a suicide, but is also a response to not wishing to have a life alone, dealing with a murder charge, and especially not wanting to end life imprisoned for what both view as an act of kindness.
Of course, the families involved will be forever impacted by not having the opportunity to say a final farewell to either party, will wonder what they could have done to help, and be haunted by what has been deemed to be a homicide and a suicide.
This is insanity, this is madness, but this is what current law encourages. Please pass this bill – it gives people at the end of their lives options, it does not force people to exercise them. Either way, they can die in peace. For family and friends it can prevent suicide and let all involved live in peace.
https://www.chadwickfuneralservice.com/obituary/peggy-a-brown [Please read this!]
https://www.chadwickfuneralservice.com/obituary/douglas-lyon
https://www.doj.nh.gov/news/2022/20221130-new-london-untimely-deaths.htm
https://www.vnews.com/New-London-murder-suicide-49023071
See the “death and legacy” section here:
James Tiptree Jr. – Wikipedia
Thanks, John. I wasn’t familiar with that.
Personally, I’m not all that much of a supporter of MAiD, I’m more interested in non-medical aid in dying. Currently in New Hampshire, about all we can do is accept palliative care but refuse food and water, an annoyingly slow process.
There’s quite a bit that’s hard to learn about, but it seems to me hypoxia would be a good way to go.
From Email I sent to a state rep and long time friend:
As for “numerous cheap, painless and clean options,” that’s actually more my style, though with safeguards fairly similar to what’s in the bill. Hypoxia seems to be the most promising way. I’ve heard stories about a NASA employee early in the Space Shuttle program who didn’t see/realize/whatever that the room he was going into had pure nitrogen, golfer Payne Stewart in an charter airplane with a cabin air pressure leak, college swimmers trying to hold their breath long first hyperventilate to purge CO2, then inhale, then sit at the bottom of the pool until someone realizes they been there for too long. (CO2 build up is what triggers the urge to breathe, not low O2.)
Party store helium apparently doesn’t work – the helium shortage has people mixing in oxygen which has the side effect of keeping people alive when they wanted to talk like Donald Duck. My uncle had a nitrogen purge thing for keeping half empty wine bottles fresh, apparently they’re using argon now – I bet the bottled gas folk consider it waste, it’s 1% of the atmosphere. Good enough.
OTOH, Alabama may not have handled a nitrogen hypoxia event well or the inmate wasn’t in a cooperative mood.
The most moving testimony last year in New Hampshire came from a young woman who drove up from Rhode Island to speak to the committee. Her mother, dying from cancer, ended her life in a way that was much more gruesome than she expected. I suspect I know what happened, but it’s speculation and adds nothing to the story. Her full testimony is at https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/remotetestimony/showtestimony.aspx?&id=380662 and is well worth reading.
Here are the first two paragraphs:
My name is Kira Philips, and I am writing to ask you to please support and pass HB254, the New Hampshire End of Life Freedom Act.
I have been a passionate advocate for Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) since 2021, when I lost my beloved mom, Clare Philips, to suicide on June 3rd. That day will forever consume me, and the prolonged and complex grief caused by the manner of her death has impacted me and my dad profoundly. Early that morning, my mom ended her life by shooting herself in the head, in the shed in our back yard. My dad, her husband of over 40 years, had to find my mom, an image he will never be able to forget. I was still asleep when he came running up to tell me what had happened. Within 30 minutes there was a swarm of about ten police on our property, we were questioned by detectives, and they confiscated the letter she had left. In the coming days we had to hire a biohazard cleaning service and make arrangements for my mom with the funeral home, in which they told us there was “too much trauma” to do anything but cremation. I asked them if they could save a lock of her hair for me, and they said there was just too much trauma. My dad was shattered and has been left with functioning PTSD, anxiety, now has a psychiatrist, and sees a therapist. I lost my best friend, my hero, and my soul mate.
I support individual choice for assisted suicide but Canada appears to be a Eugenicists dream profiting from killing useless eaters. They are murdering people suffering from depression and other treatable mental illnesses.
I haven’t had a positive view of the healthcare community for a long time. Covid 19 just reinforced my views. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good and capable practitioners. I have had positive experience with most of my healthcare providers but not all. I like my current doctor but she is lockstep with whatever is the current consensus. I have had to redirect her thinking a couple times. I have two cancer doctors one is pitiful the other is exceptional. I have found hospital administration sucks at every level.
The problem with socialized medicine is that it means government gets to decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.
Canada is a dying country. It s wiling to kill its coming generation via abortion and now willing to kill off its older generation vis euthanasia.
First do no harm seems to have lost its authority.
There are good and bad aspects, that goes without saying. The question remains whether the good, in this type of law, is outweighed by the bad, that is, whether the poor and lonely request euthanasia to escape their despair. People will say, “The controls are strict; you can’t just request euthanasia like that.” I’m not entirely convinced. I strongly suggest you look into the Tine Nys case. It happened in Belgium a little over fifteen years ago. It’s written in French, but ChatGPT should be able to do a satisfactory translation.
Lien de l’article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Tine_Nys
I ask the following questions:
What happens if economically and/or socially disadvantaged people prefer to resort to euthanasia rather than continue living this life of misery? It’s undoubtedly more bearable to be sick when you’re rich and can have a personal medical team than when you’re poor and alone in your suffering.
What happens if family members pressure a parent because “your condition is impacting the children” / “we don’t have enough money to pay for the clinic” / “you’ll die without pain, how lucky!” / “You’ve done your time, it’s time to step aside” (a bit harsh, but we all have different tolerances for guilt-tripping)?
What happens if a parent, tired of caring for a sick person, bribes a doctor to perform an unwanted euthanasia?
What happens if a psychopathic doctor manipulates the most vulnerable among their patients into requesting euthanasia? There are some truly twisted people out there, you know.
What happens if society completely spirals out of control and we stop treating people deemed too old for a transplant and instead offer them euthanasia?
I’ll be told these are “isolated cases,” that there are always abuses, that it’s inevitable. Yes. But the ethical dilemma in enacting one law or another isn’t the same.
I’m certainly not rolling in money, but I’d much rather be ripped off for twenty thousand euros by some shady character exploiting a loophole in the law than be forced to accept euthanasia “in the best of spirits” by relatives who don’t care about me and find my presence a burden.
They should remove the “i” in the acronym, cuz this shit is MADness.