A veteran British physician is sounding the alarm that 2026 will go down as the year Western governments openly normalize what he bluntly calls “mass slaughter of the disabled, the poor, the frail, the old, the unemployed and the unwanted.”
Dr. Vernon Coleman, a long-time critic of global health bureaucracies and government overreach, argues that so-called “assisted dying” and “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) have already crossed a line in countries like Canada and the Netherlands.
He argues that other Western nations will soon topple and warns that the United Kingdom is now being maneuvered down the same path under the banner of “compassion.”
According to Coleman, this isn’t about choice or dignity.
It’s about building a state-run mechanism to quietly eliminate those the system views as a burden.
Coleman raised the alarm in a new essay where he warns about the rise in euthanasia and the slippery slope into full-blown eugenics.
His warning is blunt: if the public does not stop it now, euthanasia will not remain a “rare, carefully regulated last resort.”
It will become a routine exit ramp for governments to eliminate the burden of anyone who is old, ill, disabled, poor, lonely, or simply inconvenient.
Britain’s “Death by Doctor” Bill: From ‘Compassion’ to a Legal Killing Machine?
In the U.K., Coleman points to the fast-tracked “assisted dying” legislation in Parliament as the next major front.
He notes that MPs in the House of Commons “narrowly” voted the bill through.
However, many lawmakers, he argues, had “no real idea” what they were actually authorizing.
Yet, the bill now sits in the House of Lords with growing time and political pressure behind it.
Coleman characterizes the bill as one of the most dangerous and misleading pieces of legislation ever introduced in Westminster.
On paper, it is sold as a tightly controlled option for a small number of patients in severe pain, desperate to end their lives.
In practice, he insists, that is never where it stops.
He warns that the globalist political playbook is now familiar:
1) Pass a tightly worded law.
2) Reassure the public that it will be used “rarely” and only in “exceptional” circumstances.
3) Then quietly expand the criteria, weaken safeguards, and normalize the practice until it becomes just another “treatment option.”
In his view, this is not speculation.
It is exactly what has already happened around the world.
Canada: “Death by Doctor” as a Model for Mission Creep
Coleman argues that Canada is the clearest warning of where “assisted dying” regimes inevitably lead once the door is opened.
Canada legalized MAiD in 2016 with a key condition: the patient’s natural death had to be “reasonably foreseeable.”
That legal phrase was initially presented as a strict safeguard.
Within a few years, Coleman notes, the safeguards were eroded step by step:
• The “reasonably foreseeable” requirement was dropped.
• MAiD eligibility expanded to people with “grievous and irremediable” medical conditions — a broad, subjective category.
• The program was then extended to non-terminal disabilities, chronic illnesses, and loss of independence.
Canada is now preparing to open MAiD to people whose primary condition is mental illness, and discussions have already included minors.
From there, Coleman argues, the logic was extended further: poverty, isolation, and lack of support have become de facto reasons to die.
He cites cases reported in Canadian media and public testimony where:
• Disabled veterans were reportedly offered euthanasia instead of support or adaptive equipment.
• Patients with depression, eating disorders, or long-term psychiatric conditions were told they could pursue MAiD as an “option” rather than receiving sustained treatment.
• Individuals who could not secure adequate housing or disability support considered assisted death because they could no longer survive with dignity.
Coleman’s core claim is stark: what began as a supposedly “rare and regulated” last resort has become a system where the state, medical bureaucracy, and cash-strapped health services treat premature death as a cost-saving measure.
He notes that official Canadian figures already show tens of thousands of deaths through MAiD, and he argues the real numbers may be higher due to the way causes of death are recorded.
From Care to Culling: When Vulnerable People Are Steered Toward Suicide
Dr. Coleman emphasizes that the most chilling trend is not just who qualifies on paper, but how vulnerable people are being nudged toward euthanasia in practice.
He cites reported cases in which:
• A paralyzed veteran asking for a wheelchair ramp was allegedly offered euthanasia instead.
• A woman seeking help for depression was asked if she had considered MAiD, with staff reportedly mentioning that a state-administered death would be “more comfortable” than a suicide attempt.
• Family members claim hospital staff persistently pressured them to sign Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders or agree to “assisted dying” for elderly relatives.
Coleman’s argument is that once a culture and legal system normalize the notion that death is a medically managed solution to suffering, economic pressures, ideological agendas, and bureaucratic convenience begin to do the rest.
He warns that the poor, disabled, chronically ill, mentally distressed, and the elderly become prime candidates for “death by doctor” when treatment is deemed too costly, beds too scarce, or their lives too “low quality” in the eyes of the system.
The “Slippery Slope” Is No Longer Theoretical
Supporters of assisted suicide often dismiss concerns about a slippery slope as fearmongering.
Coleman responds by treating the “slope” as a documented historical pattern.
He points to international examples where:
• In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia has extended to minors, people with autism, learning disabilities, and psychiatric disorders.
• In some cases, parents or relatives reportedly approved euthanasia for demented or incapacitated patients who could no longer meaningfully consent.
• Over time, “exceptional” categories quietly become routine.
Coleman warns that “assisted suicide” laws will be no different in any other nation that passes similar laws.
He argues that once the legal architecture is in place and doctors are empowered to deliver lethal injections, the pressure to expand, streamline, and normalize the practice will be relentless.
The Myth of the ‘Peaceful, Painless’ Euthanasia
One of the most powerful parts of Coleman’s argument is his direct attack on what he calls the “convenient myth” that euthanasia is gentle, peaceful, and painless.
He cites medical reporting and case studies from countries with established euthanasia regimes and from U.S. death-penalty protocols, including:
• Failed lethal injections where patients took hours or days to die.
• Cases of vomiting, gasping, spasms, and apparent distress after the administration of “cocktails” of killing drugs.
• Instances in which patients reportedly woke up after ingesting so-called “death doses,” creating confusion about what to do next.
• Autopsy evidence from executions showing fluid build-up in the lungs consistent with the sensation of drowning or suffocation.
Coleman argues that:
• There are no standardized protocols guaranteeing a quick, painless death.
• Monitoring during euthanasia is minimal, and there is no way to know exactly what the patient experiences physiologically in their final moments.
• The serene image sold to the public, a quiet fade into sleep, is often marketing, not medicine.
If anything, he suggests, a bullet would likely be faster and more reliable.
The fact that governments avoid such blunt methods, he implies, is not about mercy, but optics.
From “Assisted Dying” to Depopulation and Organ Harvesting
Coleman goes further than most critics, tying euthanasia into a broader global agenda.
In his view, pushing “death by doctor” is not just a misguided policy; it is an integral feature of a depopulation and eugenics project aimed at managing “surplus” population.
He notes several converging trends:
• Palliative care and hospices are underfunded or closing.
• Health systems are rationing treatment and leaving patients on waiting lists where many die before they are seen.
• Elderly patients have been subjected to “Do Not Resuscitate” orders or withdrawal of food and fluids without proper consent.
• Against that backdrop, euthanasia is sold as a compassionate “choice,” even as genuine care becomes harder to access.
Coleman also raises a deeply uncomfortable point that organs are being harvested from people who are euthanized by their governments.
He warns that:
• The most viable organs come from people who die in controlled, medically managed scenarios, not from random accidents or natural death at an advanced stage.
• Euthanasia provides precisely that: a predictable, controlled death in a hospital setting, with organs still in condition to be harvested.
• As organ donation systems increasingly move from opt-in to presumed consent, euthanasia could quietly become a pipeline of high-quality organs.
In his view, this creates a perverse incentive structure where:
• The same system that encourages vulnerable patients to die can turn around and reserve their organs for the political and economic elite.
Coleman portrays euthanasia as the ultimate inversion: those most in need of protection are steered into early death, while their bodies are mined for parts.
The Culture Shift: From Protecting Life to Managing Death
Beyond policy mechanics and horror stories, Coleman is most concerned about the cultural and moral shift.
He argues that:
• Once the state and medical profession reposition themselves not just as healers but as authorized killers, the entire foundation of medicine changes.
• Many doctors want nothing to do with this, but a system under financial strain will always find enough willing participants.
• The same political class that mishandled the pandemic, advanced experimental mandates, and centralized more power over daily life is now being trusted to decide who can be legally killed.
He also warns about new speech and “influence” restrictions around euthanasia, citing proposals in places like Scotland that would criminalize attempts to talk someone out of assisted death.
In other words, the state moves from allowing euthanasia, to encouraging it, to punishing those who resist it.
“Speak Now or Regret It Later”
Dr. Coleman’s conclusion is not subtle.
He insists that:
• Euthanasia bills are not neutral health policies; they are tools to accelerate depopulation, cut costs, and eliminate those deemed “useless eaters.”
• Safeguards will not hold. They never do.
• Once the machine is built, it will not be reserved for the most extreme cases—it will be normalized, expanded, and defended as “progress.”
He warns that many people will only grasp the full horror when it is too late, when a parent is pressured into “choosing” death, when a disabled person is steered toward euthanasia instead of care, or when a depressed relative is quietly approved for a lethal injection.
By then, he suggests, resistance will be branded as selfish, “anti-choice,” or even criminal.
In a final warning to the public, Coleman asserts that, if you stay silent now, you may not like the world that silence builds.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.