---

There is a growing trend in Canada to harvest organs from euthanasia victims, which the Canadian state calls Medical Assistance in Dying (“MAID”).

Ethicists have warned that harvesting organs from euthanised patients could result in pressuring people to opt for death so that their organs can be used by those with better prognoses, Jonathon van Maren writes.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Canada is Turning Its Assisted Suicide Regime into an Organ Donation Supply Chain

By Jonathon van Maren, as published by Life Site News

The heart of a 38-year-old Canadian man who was euthanised was successfully harvested and donated to a 59-year-old American man with heart failure, according to the National Post. The case highlights a growing trend: organs being harvested from euthanasia victims.

A report from The University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre and The Ottawa Hospital detailed the procedure. “Here we report the first case of successful cardiac transplantation after MAiD,” the medical team wrote. And, more ominously: “Provision of MAiD and death determination occurred in keeping with Canadian standards. Death was declared within seven minutes of initiating the MAiD protocol.”

The Canadian was suffering from ALS (or Lou Gehrig’s disease), and had indicated his desire to donate his organs, but this is a “landmark case of a heart transplant following euthanasia.” According to the National Post: “The dead donor’s heart was removed, attached to a special machine that ‘reanimates’ or restarts the heart to keep blood flowing through the organs while keeping them warm, and then transported to Pittsburgh, where the transplant took place.”

Read: Canadian doctor Charles Hoffe says Canada is in “spiritual war” against abortion and euthanasia

Organs being harvested from freshly euthanised patients are becoming more common; while this is the first heart transplant, there have already been liver, kidney, and lung transplants, and “at least 155 people in Canada have donated their organs and tissues after receiving a doctor-administered lethal injection” since 2016, although a “number of doctors are concerned that some Canadians receiving medical assisted death don’t actually meet Health Canada’s criteria for the procedure.”

The successful heart transplant provides an incentive for repeat procedures. “While longer-term data and data on additional cases will be required, this case suggests that safe cardiac transplantation can be performed after MAiD,” the report stated. Pro-lifers – and many ethicists – have noted that the practice of harvesting the organs from euthanised patients could result in pressure being put on people to opt for death so that their organs can be used by healthier people or those with better prognoses.

Canada has already achieved the dubious distinction of becoming a “world leader in ODE – organ donation after euthanasia.” A Dutch study indicated that of 286 instances of ODE leading up to 2021, 136 instances were Canadian. CIHI data indicates that 235 people have “consented to donating their organs” after being killed by euthanasia, and of 894 euthanised donors, 7 per cent had their organs harvested for donation and 5 per cent of organ transplants in 2024 used the organs of euthanised Canadians.

The National Post noted that even as the practice becomes more common, controversy surrounding the process continues:

However, how, and when, to approach people requesting MAiD about organ donation is controversial and varies in Canada, according to the review paper. Organ donor organisations in Ontario and British Columbia recommend that people who request MAiD “are approached and informed about the possibility of organ donation.” In others, like Alberta and Manitoba, people aren’t asked about organ donation unless they start the conversation themselves.

“Not informing patients about the possibility of donation can prevent them from exploring the opportunity to donate their organs and negatively impact their autonomy, while informing them of this possibility may cause undue societal pressure for donation, and the desire to become a donor may be a driver for the MAiD request,” the review authors wrote.

Read: Alberta puts pressure on the federal government’s euthanasia regime

In fact, the authors also warned that “some patients may feel they are a burden to their family and friends and feel motivated to undergo MAiD to relieve this burden,” stating that those both assessing and killing the patients should be on watch for “potential indicators that the patient may somehow be feeling pressured to proceed with MAiD or MAiD and organ donation.”

Considering how lax Canadian MAiD assessors have been thus far – and the fact that up to a quarter of “MAiD providers” in Ontario may have violated the criminal code – it is very unlikely that assessors can be trusted in this regard.

In 2011, the medical journal Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology published a description of how several instances of ODE were carried out:

Donors were admitted to the hospital a few hours before the planned euthanasia procedure. A central venous line was placed in a room adjacent to the operating room. Donors were heparinised [a drug to maintain organ viability] immediately before a cocktail of drugs was given by the treating physician who agreed to perform the euthanasia. The patient was announced dead on cardiorespiratory criteria by 3 independent physicians as required by Belgian legislation for every organ donor … The deceased was then rapidly transferred, installed on the operating table, and intubated [in preparation for organ removal].

“Ponder the enormity of what was done here,” ethicist Wesley J. Smith wrote at the time. “Four people – who were not otherwise dying – were killed and then swiftly wheeled into a surgery suite to have their organs removed. Three of the donors were struggling with neuromuscular disabilities – people who often face social isolation and discrimination – and one was mentally ill. In a particularly bitter irony, the latter patient was a chronic self-harmer, the ‘treatment’ for which was a willing professional team ready to administer the ultimate harm.”