Excerpt from the blog of Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition updating events in the world of medically delivered death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In late 2023, with the anticipation that euthanasia for mental illness alone would soon begin, many of Canada’s provincial health ministers challenged the federal government, which led to the federal government delaying implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 2027.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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