Here is additional information about the World Federation of Right to Die Societies International Conference. It will be in Tokyo from November 25-28, 2026. 

Italian President Sergio Mattarella has granted a pardon to Cioni Franco. Franco had been sentenced to six years' imprisonment for suffocating his wife with a pillow in 2021.  Franco's wife, Laura Amidei, was suffering from terminal cancer. Even the public prosecutor agreed that that Franco had no other goal than to spare his wife further suffering. Defendants in similar cases across the United States have similarly received light sentences for what is technically criminal, yet compassionate, forgivable conduct.

Bioethics at Columbia University recently presented this terrific webinar: Time to Rethink Brain Death: A Discussion With Experts with these experts: * Robert D. Truog, M.D., Director Emeritus of the Center for Bioethics; Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, & Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School * Lauris C. Kaldjian, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Program in Bioethics and Humanities, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa * Barbra Rothschild, M.D., Lecturer, Bioethics; Columbia University * Lydia Dugdale, M.D., MAR, Dorothy L. and Daniel H. Silberberg Professor of Medicine; Director of the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, Columbia University Medical Center A webinar discussion on the determination of brain death with leaders across the nation: Drs Truog, Kaldjian, Dugdale & Rothschild. This discussion will include metaphysical and moral views on definitions of death in light of novel advances.

The 3rd International Death Literacies Symposium will be on March 9 & 10, 2026, in Breda, Netherlands. The Death Literacy Institute works across systems – people, places, and organizations to embed skills, experience, actions, and knowledge that create and support the development of end-of-life, grief and death literacy. They design and develop training and professional development for organizations and community groups and conduct research and evaluation. 

Bioethics at Columbia University recently presented this terrific webinar: Time to Rethink Brain Death: A Discussion With Experts with these experts: * Robert D. Truog, M.D., Director Emeritus of the Center for Bioethics; Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, & Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School * Lauris C. Kaldjian, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Program in Bioethics and Humanities, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa * Barbra Rothschild, M.D., Lecturer, Bioethics; Columbia University * Lydia Dugdale, M.D., MAR, Dorothy L. and Daniel H. Silberberg Professor of Medicine; Director of the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, Columbia University Medical Center A webinar discussion on the determination of brain death with leaders across the nation: Drs Truog, Kaldjian, Dugdale & Rothschild. This discussion will include metaphysical and moral views on definitions of death in light of novel advances.

A recent episode of Chicago Tonight discusses the new Illinois MAID law, the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, with the bill sponsor (Holmes) and a physician member of the state legislature (Hauter).  Oddly, Rep. Hauter repeatedly contradicts himself. For example, he says MAID is inconsistent with the goals of medicine. Yet, he also asserts that we do not need MAID because we already have other end-of-life options in Illinois. So, MAID is enough like other options enough that it is unneeded yet enough unlike other options that it is more ethically problematic? The law does not become effective until September 12, 2026. Based on the track records in the other thirteen U.S. MAID jurisdictions, we will see both amending legislation and litigation before 2030.  

Virginia has just introduced S.B. 71 to address decision making for unrepresented patients. The bill would amend the default surrogate statute as follows:  If none of the persons listed in subdivisions 3 through 7 are reasonably available, health care decisions may be made by a patient care consulting committee, as defined in § 54.1-2982, of the facility where the patient is receiving health care. The patient care consulting committee shall function strictly as the patient's advocate, shall not include as a member any person on the patient's treatment team, nor shall it represent the interests of the health care facility. The committee's findings or recommendations shall reflect consensus reached at a meeting with a quorum present and shall be documented. In all circumstances, decision-making shall conform to the standards established in subsection B of § 54.1-2986.1 and be made in a manner described as follows: a. The committee shall authorize a plan of care or goals of care, and the attending physician shall update the committee as appropriate and consistent with standards of medical practice. b. Subsequent interventions that, either by law or by facility policy, require signed consent may be authorized by the patient care consulting committee or, if authorization is needed before the committee can next reasonably reconvene, then by agreement that the intervention is consistent with the authorized plan or goals of care between the attending physician and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility; and the committee shall be notified promptly. c. A decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or a life-prolonging procedure may be made only by agreement among the patient care consulting committee, the attending physician, and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility. d. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of the attending physician or other members of the health care team to intervene in an emergency, where intervention is needed immediately to prevent death or serious injury, consistent with the plan or goals of care established by the patient care consulting committee or on behalf of a patient for whom the committee has not yet met. When health care decisions are made under subdivision 8, the facility shall continue good faith efforts to identify and locate a person in a preceding level of priority. No individual serving on a facility's patient care consulting committee shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability for any act or omission done or made in good faith in the performance of such functions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Notably, Virginia already defined "patient care consulting committee" - shall consist of five individuals, including at least one physician, one person licensed or holding a multistate licensure privilege under Chapter 30 (§ 54.1-3000 et seq.) to practice professional nursing, and one individual responsible for the provision of social services to patients of the facility. At least one committee member shall have experience in clinical ethics and at least two committee members shall have no employment or contractual relationship with the facility or any involvement in the management, operations, or governance of the facility, other than serving on the patient care consulting committee. A patient care consulting committee may be organized as a subcommittee of a standing ethics or other committee established by the facility or may be a separate and distinct committee. Four members of the patient care consulting committee shall constitute a quorum of the patient care consulting committee.

A recent episode of Chicago Tonight discusses the new Illinois MAID law, the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, with the bill sponsor (Holmes) and a physician member of the state legislature (Hauter).  Oddly, Rep. Hauter repeatedly contradicts himself. For example, he says MAID is inconsistent with the goals of medicine. Yet, he also asserts that we do not need MAID because we already have other end-of-life options in Illinois. So, MAID is enough like other options enough that it is unneeded yet enough unlike other options that it is more ethically problematic? The law does not become effective until September 12, 2026. Based on the track records in the other thirteen U.S. MAID jurisdictions, we will see both amending legislation and litigation before 2030.  

The 3rd International Death Literacies Symposium will be on March 9 & 10, 2026, in Breda, Netherlands. The Death Literacy Institute works across systems – people, places, and organizations to embed skills, experience, actions, and knowledge that create and support the development of end-of-life, grief and death literacy. They design and develop training and professional development for organizations and community groups and conduct research and evaluation. 

Aging with Dignity claims that 31-year-old Eileen Mihich wrongfully obtained MAID medications in Washington State. And they produced a short film aiming to show that.    Aging with Dignity first alleges that Eileen "suffered from serious mental illness." That's a big focus of the film. But it's also irrelevant. Mental illness does not disqualify an otherwise eligible patient. Aging with Dignity next alleges three other facts that are relevant because the suggest Eileen was not eligible. Aging with Dignity alleges: (1) Eileen was not a Washington resident, (2) no doctor verified she was terminally ill, and (3) no waiting period was enforced.  These are material defects. But they are also so extreme to be incredible. Aging with Dignity apparently has access to Eileen's medical records. Some are shown in the film. Those records show that Eileen's terminal diagnosis was "stage 4 cervical cancer." How does Aging with Dignity know that was false? How do they know she was not a Washington resident? How do they know no waiting period was enforced? This sort of noncompliance with the Washington MAID law is criminal. Let's see the evidence that supports these serious assertions and contentions. Don't just aver what Eileen did. Show it.  

The 3rd International Death Literacies Symposium will be on March 9 & 10, 2026, in Breda, Netherlands. The Death Literacy Institute works across systems – people, places, and organizations to embed skills, experience, actions, and knowledge that create and support the development of end-of-life, grief and death literacy. They design and develop training and professional development for organizations and community groups and conduct research and evaluation. 

Virginia has just introduced S.B. 71 to address decision making for unrepresented patients. The bill would amend the default surrogate statute as follows:  If none of the persons listed in subdivisions 3 through 7 are reasonably available, health care decisions may be made by a patient care consulting committee, as defined in § 54.1-2982, of the facility where the patient is receiving health care. The patient care consulting committee shall function strictly as the patient's advocate, shall not include as a member any person on the patient's treatment team, nor shall it represent the interests of the health care facility. The committee's findings or recommendations shall reflect consensus reached at a meeting with a quorum present and shall be documented. In all circumstances, decision-making shall conform to the standards established in subsection B of § 54.1-2986.1 and be made in a manner described as follows: a. The committee shall authorize a plan of care or goals of care, and the attending physician shall update the committee as appropriate and consistent with standards of medical practice. b. Subsequent interventions that, either by law or by facility policy, require signed consent may be authorized by the patient care consulting committee or, if authorization is needed before the committee can next reasonably reconvene, then by agreement that the intervention is consistent with the authorized plan or goals of care between the attending physician and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility; and the committee shall be notified promptly. c. A decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or a life-prolonging procedure may be made only by agreement among the patient care consulting committee, the attending physician, and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility. d. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of the attending physician or other members of the health care team to intervene in an emergency, where intervention is needed immediately to prevent death or serious injury, consistent with the plan or goals of care established by the patient care consulting committee or on behalf of a patient for whom the committee has not yet met. When health care decisions are made under subdivision 8, the facility shall continue good faith efforts to identify and locate a person in a preceding level of priority. No individual serving on a facility's patient care consulting committee shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability for any act or omission done or made in good faith in the performance of such functions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Notably, Virginia already defined "patient care consulting committee" - shall consist of five individuals, including at least one physician, one person licensed or holding a multistate licensure privilege under Chapter 30 (§ 54.1-3000 et seq.) to practice professional nursing, and one individual responsible for the provision of social services to patients of the facility. At least one committee member shall have experience in clinical ethics and at least two committee members shall have no employment or contractual relationship with the facility or any involvement in the management, operations, or governance of the facility, other than serving on the patient care consulting committee. A patient care consulting committee may be organized as a subcommittee of a standing ethics or other committee established by the facility or may be a separate and distinct committee. Four members of the patient care consulting committee shall constitute a quorum of the patient care consulting committee.

A case pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court presents questions that are increasingly relevant. What should an OPO do when the individual who was determined dead is no longer dead? (Estate of Paula Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, oral argument video)  This is sometimes referred to as "reanimation." With the T.J. Hoover case in Kentucky and similar cases being investigated in Kentucky, New Jersey, and other places; this is no longer sui generis. We need answers to this question. In the Paula Denison case, the hospital determined she was dead on neurologic criteria (brain dead). Later, at the OPO facility she was determined not dead. These facts are not disputed by either the hospital or OPO. But the OPO did not timely transfer Denison back to the hospital or otherwise reasonably respond. Remarkably, the Mississippi OPO argues it had no duty because of UAGA immunity and because the family already consented to donation. Still, the facts in other cases are even more troubling. Multiple whistleblowers allege that OPOs proceeded (or tried to proceed) to procure organs despite signs of life.  Mississippi Supreme Court oral arguments

Aging with Dignity claims that 31-year-old Eileen Mihich wrongfully obtained MAID medications in Washington State. And they produced a short film aiming to show that.    Aging with Dignity first alleges that Eileen "suffered from serious mental illness." That's a big focus of the film. But it's also irrelevant. Mental illness does not disqualify an otherwise eligible patient. Aging with Dignity next alleges three other facts that are relevant because the suggest Eileen was not eligible. Aging with Dignity alleges: (1) Eileen was not a Washington resident, (2) no doctor verified she was terminally ill, and (3) no waiting period was enforced.  These are material defects. But they are also so extreme to be incredible. Aging with Dignity apparently has access to Eileen's medical records. Some are shown in the film. Those records show that Eileen's terminal diagnosis was "stage 4 cervical cancer." How does Aging with Dignity know that was false? How do they know she was not a Washington resident? How do they know no waiting period was enforced? This sort of noncompliance with the Washington MAID law is criminal. Let's see the evidence that supports these serious assertions and contentions. Don't just aver what Eileen did. Show it.  

Missouri is one of the very few jurisdictions in the United States with no default surrogate statute. Legislation introduced for the 2026 session (H.B. 1886) again tries tom remedy that gap.

Virginia has just introduced S.B. 71 to address decision making for unrepresented patients. The bill would amend the default surrogate statute as follows:  If none of the persons listed in subdivisions 3 through 7 are reasonably available, health care decisions may be made by a patient care consulting committee, as defined in § 54.1-2982, of the facility where the patient is receiving health care. The patient care consulting committee shall function strictly as the patient's advocate, shall not include as a member any person on the patient's treatment team, nor shall it represent the interests of the health care facility. The committee's findings or recommendations shall reflect consensus reached at a meeting with a quorum present and shall be documented. In all circumstances, decision-making shall conform to the standards established in subsection B of § 54.1-2986.1 and be made in a manner described as follows: a. The committee shall authorize a plan of care or goals of care, and the attending physician shall update the committee as appropriate and consistent with standards of medical practice. b. Subsequent interventions that, either by law or by facility policy, require signed consent may be authorized by the patient care consulting committee or, if authorization is needed before the committee can next reasonably reconvene, then by agreement that the intervention is consistent with the authorized plan or goals of care between the attending physician and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility; and the committee shall be notified promptly. c. A decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or a life-prolonging procedure may be made only by agreement among the patient care consulting committee, the attending physician, and either a second physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or ethics officer who is not a member of the patient's primary treatment team, does not serve in a capacity of decision-making, influence, or responsibility over the attending physician, and is not under the attending physician's decision-making, influence, or responsibility. d. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of the attending physician or other members of the health care team to intervene in an emergency, where intervention is needed immediately to prevent death or serious injury, consistent with the plan or goals of care established by the patient care consulting committee or on behalf of a patient for whom the committee has not yet met. When health care decisions are made under subdivision 8, the facility shall continue good faith efforts to identify and locate a person in a preceding level of priority. No individual serving on a facility's patient care consulting committee shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability for any act or omission done or made in good faith in the performance of such functions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Notably, Virginia already defined "patient care consulting committee" - shall consist of five individuals, including at least one physician, one person licensed or holding a multistate licensure privilege under Chapter 30 (§ 54.1-3000 et seq.) to practice professional nursing, and one individual responsible for the provision of social services to patients of the facility. At least one committee member shall have experience in clinical ethics and at least two committee members shall have no employment or contractual relationship with the facility or any involvement in the management, operations, or governance of the facility, other than serving on the patient care consulting committee. A patient care consulting committee may be organized as a subcommittee of a standing ethics or other committee established by the facility or may be a separate and distinct committee. Four members of the patient care consulting committee shall constitute a quorum of the patient care consulting committee.

Aging with Dignity claims that 31-year-old Eileen Mihich wrongfully obtained MAID medications in Washington State. And they produced a short film aiming to show that.    Aging with Dignity first alleges that Eileen "suffered from serious mental illness." That's a big focus of the film. But it's also irrelevant. Mental illness does not disqualify an otherwise eligible patient. Aging with Dignity next alleges three other facts that are relevant because the suggest Eileen was not eligible. Aging with Dignity alleges: (1) Eileen was not a Washington resident, (2) no doctor verified she was terminally ill, and (3) no waiting period was enforced.  These are material defects. But they are also so extreme to be incredible. Aging with Dignity apparently has access to Eileen's medical records. Some are shown in the film. Those records show that Eileen's terminal diagnosis was "stage 4 cervical cancer." How does Aging with Dignity know that was false? How do they know she was not a Washington resident? How do they know no waiting period was enforced? This sort of noncompliance with the Washington MAID law is criminal. Let's see the evidence that supports these serious assertions and contentions. Don't just aver what Eileen did. Show it.  

The Irish High Court has authorized clinicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a 51-year-old patient.  S.M. suffered severe hypoxic brain injury after several cardiac arrests. The court determined that S.M.'s condition was permanent and that she would never regain consciousness.  High Court President Barniville

A case pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court presents questions that are increasingly relevant. What should an OPO do when the individual who was determined dead is no longer dead? (Estate of Paula Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, oral argument video)  This is sometimes referred to as "reanimation." With the T.J. Hoover case in Kentucky and similar cases being investigated in Kentucky, New Jersey, and other places; this is no longer sui generis. We need answers to this question. In the Paula Denison case, the hospital determined she was dead on neurologic criteria (brain dead). Later, at the OPO facility she was determined not dead. These facts are not disputed by either the hospital or OPO. But the OPO did not timely transfer Denison back to the hospital or otherwise reasonably respond. Remarkably, the Mississippi OPO argues it had no duty because of UAGA immunity and because the family already consented to donation. Still, the facts in other cases are even more troubling. Multiple whistleblowers allege that OPOs proceeded (or tried to proceed) to procure organs despite signs of life.  Mississippi Supreme Court oral arguments

The website of the New York Governor indicates that New York will become the 14th U.S. jurisdiction to authorize medical aid in dying.   One year ago, only 11 U.S. jurisdictions authorized MAID. Now, 14 do. In 2019, both Maine and New Jersey enacted legislation. That was two states in a single year. But never before have three states (three) enacted legislation in a single year. In 2025, Delaware, Illinois, and New York all passed laws. More than 100 million Americans now live in a state where MAID is authorized. 

Missouri is one of the very few jurisdictions in the United States with no default surrogate statute. Legislation introduced for the 2026 session (H.B. 1886) again tries tom remedy that gap.

The New York Times Magazine profiles the most important people who died in 2025. Katie Engelhardt contributes a compelling obituary on Derek Humphry. 

A case pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court presents questions that are increasingly relevant. What should an OPO do when the individual who was determined dead is no longer dead? (Estate of Paula Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, oral argument video)  This is sometimes referred to as "reanimation." With the T.J. Hoover case in Kentucky and similar cases being investigated in Kentucky, New Jersey, and other places; this is no longer sui generis. We need answers to this question. In the Paula Denison case, the hospital determined she was dead on neurologic criteria (brain dead). Later, at the OPO facility she was determined not dead. These facts are not disputed by either the hospital or OPO. But the OPO did not timely transfer Denison back to the hospital or otherwise reasonably respond. Remarkably, the Mississippi OPO argues it had no duty because of UAGA immunity and because the family already consented to donation. Still, the facts in other cases are even more troubling. Multiple whistleblowers allege that OPOs proceeded (or tried to proceed) to procure organs despite signs of life.  Mississippi Supreme Court oral arguments

Queen’s Law is offering a two-day intensive, next month, for all professionals on legal readiness in life’s final stages. Here is the course outline: Long-Term Care Worries * Situating Long-Term Care and Home Care in the Canadian Health Care System * Long-Term Care and the Canada Health Act * Financing and Regulation of Long-Term Care * Navigating Care Options (e.g., long-term care facilities, home care, palliative care, hospice care)  Withdrawing Treatment  * When and Why Treatment May Be Withheld or Withdrawn * Consent, Capacity and Substitute Decision-Making * The Impact of Rasouli * Conflicts Between Patient Autonomy and Clinical Judgment MAiD (Abridged)  * History of MAiD * Current law * Eligibility Criteria and Procedural Safeguards * Individual Conscientious Objection * Comparisons with Other Jurisdictions * Data on Who is Requesting/Accessing MAiD Advance Care Planning  * The Importance of ACP * Legal Framework for ACP in Canada * Advance Directives; Substitute/Surrogate Decision-Making * Legal Requirements for Validity * Disputes and Litigation Examples * Ethical and Cultural Considerations Organ Donation   * Organ donation * Opt-in vs Opt-Out Systems for Organ Donation Palliative Care  * Core Principles and Goals of Palliative Care * When to Introduce Palliative Care * Communication and Goals-of-Care Conversations * Non-MAiD potentially life-shortening interventions * Palliative Sedation * Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking (VSED)

Missouri is one of the very few jurisdictions in the United States with no default surrogate statute. Legislation introduced for the 2026 session (H.B. 1886) again tries tom remedy that gap.