As readers may recall, the exchange itself was largely unproductive. It did, however, illustrate several strategies commonly used by opponents of MAiD—and the difficulties involved in trying to have a productive conversation under those conditions.

What was supposed to be a good-faith discussion instead became a showcase of dehumanizing language, red herrings, diversions and the inaccurate use of references.

It is that final problem—the misuse of references, and the time and effort required to correct claims supposedly supported by them—that we want to talk about today.

While negotiating the terms and structure of the exchange with Friesen, we insisted on the following condition:

We insisted on that condition because our experience has taught us that those most strongly opposed to MAiD frequently make broad assertions as though they are established facts, without providing evidence to support them. Had that happened throughout the exchange, the discussion would have become little more than an extended fact-checking exercise—something we had no interest in participating in.

This is a familiar strategy in combative debates: flood the field with so many unsupported or unrelated claims that the other side is forced to spend all its available time correcting them.2 The result is that little opportunity remains for anything resembling a productive conversation.

Friesen did attempt to flood the field to some degree. To his credit, however, he also provided references for many of his claims.

What we did not expect was that many of those references would not support the claims he was making—and, in many cases, directly contradicted him.

In some respects, that is worse than providing no references at all. Readers who are disinclined to check the sources themselves will likely assume that the claim is supported by evidence when, in reality, it is not.3 We were therefore left spending much our time explaining why Friesen’s references did not establish what he claimed they did.

One Example

One assertion Friesen made repeatedly was that there is no meaningful difference between MAiD and suicide.4 He claimed that this position was supported by psychiatric and suicide-prevention organizations, including the American Association of Suicidology (AAS).

In week three of our exchange, Friesen wrote:

As evidence, he cited an AAS notice explaining that its previous position statement recognizing medical aid in dying as distinct from suicide was being retired as part of a broader review of past position statements.6

Friesen treated the retirement of that position statement as proof that the AAS had abandoned its previous position, claiming that the AAS denied that any distinction exists.7

In our response we pointed out:

That was the strongest description of the AAS position we could responsibly make at the time. The organization had retired its statement but had not yet published anything clarifying whether its underlying position had actually changed.

The only reliable way to determine the AAS’s position was to ask them.

So that is what we did.

The Asymmetry of Misinformation

Before getting to their response, it is worth pausing over what happened here.

Friesen took a few seconds to make a claim that ultimately took us more than six months to refute conclusively.

That imbalance is one of the greatest challenges involved in responding to misinformation about MAiD—or misinformation more generally. An inaccurate claim can be made in a sentence. Demonstrating why it is inaccurate may require hours of research, correspondence with organizations, careful analysis, and thousands of words.

There are many examples of this in the field of MAiD misinformation:

• Kelsi Sheren claimed that organ-donation rates were “skyrocketing” in Canada and that Canada was leading the world in organ donation. Neither claim was true. It took us hours of research and almost 3,500 words to demonstrate that.

• Dr. Joel Zivot wrote one paper about pulmonary edema following executions in the United States, then suggested the same was happening in MAiD in Canada We have spent significant time over the past two years explaining why findings from American lethal injections cannot simply be transferred to medical assistance in dying in Canada.8

• Two Western University engineering professors published an irresponsibly speculative paper estimating how much money might be saved if MAiD were forced on people they described as “costing the government more than they contributed in taxes.” Multiple media outlets—as well as Health Canada—subsequently had to explain that the paper was not a federal policy document.

The original claims were simple. Correcting them was not.

What the American Association of Suicidology Actually Says About MAiD and Suicide

We first emailed the American Association of Suicidology on January 10, 2026. More than six months later, on July 22, we received a response from the CEO, Jenna Baker, along with a link to an updated position statement on MAiD and suicide that has now been republished on the organization’s website.

The statement says:

The statement then identifies fifteen points of distinction between MAiD and suicide. It also argues against using the word “suicide” to describe legally authorized physician-assisted dying:

That distinction is important. It suggests that the differences between MAiD and suicide are so fundamental that the AAS considers even using the word “suicide” to describe MAiD inappropriate.

More importantly for this discussion, the AAS position could hardly be further removed from the way Friesen characterized it.

That does not mean the AAS endorses medical assistance in dying. Suggesting that it does would repeat the same error Friesen made: treating a source as though it says more than it actually does.

The AAS is making a narrower and more careful point. MAiD and suicide may overlap in some circumstances, but they are conceptually and clinically distinguishable in principle, and should not be treated as the same phenomenon.

In our correspondence, AAS CEO Jenna Baker explained:

That is a nuanced and thoughtful position. It recognizes an important distinction without requiring the organization to endorse every form of physician-assisted dying.9

Alongside the republished position statement, the AAS has also posted its document, Development of the AAS Statement on “Suicide” and “Physician Aid in Dying,” which describes the extensive deliberation that went into developing the statement. That document also acknowledges the tension surrounding the issue and the existence of differing views within the organization itself.

Why This Matters

There is a broader lesson here.

A retired statement did not prove that the American Association of Suicidology had adopted a position opposing MAID. Nor did it prove that the organization rejected any distinction between MAiD and suicide. It proved only that the statement had been retired while the organization reviewed its past positions.

Everything beyond that was an unsupported inference.

Yet because Friesen’s claim was accompanied by a reference, it carried the appearance of authority. A reader might reasonably assume that the source had been checked and that the organization’s position had been represented accurately.

It had not.

It took one sentence for Friesen to misrepresent the AAS’s position for his own purposes. Correcting that sentence required six months, repeated correspondence, and a newly republished statement from the organization itself.

That asymmetry is what makes misinformation so difficult to confront. Falsehoods are cheap to produce, quick to repeat and easy to remember. Careful corrections are slower, more complicated and far less likely to travel as widely.

Despite that asymmetry, everyone committed to honest, evidence-based discussion has a role to play in challenging misinformation whenever they encounter it. We all may be the tortoise in this race, but careful, evidence-based work will eventually carry us across the finish line.

All our infographics are available at MAiDinCanada2016.ca and are free for anyone to use. As with everything we do here at MAiD in Canada, there is no fee to access, download, or share our work.

You are free to use these infographics in any way you find helpful. We only ask that they not be altered, and we would be grateful if you referenced MAiD in Canada as the source if possible.

High-resolution versions can be downloaded from our website:

View and download the infographics here

We have several more infographics planned, but we would also be interested in hearing from you. Is there a particular aspect of MAiD that you think would benefit from a clear visual explanation? Is there a question, statistic, safeguard, legal issue, or common misconception you would like to see addressed?

Leave a comment

Please send us your suggestions or requests. We would be more than happy to consider creating an infographic that meets a particular educational need.

Thank you, as always, for reading, sharing our work, and helping make accurate information about MAiD more widely available.

Kim and Paul

One concern we previously wrote about was the possibility that the written comment boxes following some questions were displayed conditionally—that respondents may only have been invited to explain their answer when their response aligned with what appears to have been the Alberta government’s position on MAiD.

We still cannot say with certainty that this happened. That is precisely why we requested the survey logic, branching logic, skip logic, or conditional display rules governing the survey’s comment fields. Instead, we received a collection of internal emails that was almost entirely redacted and did not answer the questions we were asking.

Ju000 2026 G 16 Applicant Copy June 15 2026

13.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Information released to us today has strengthened our concerns.

Ju000 2026 G 12 Applicant Copy Additional Records

136KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Question 8 of the survey asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement:

Among those who answered, the response was overwhelmingly positive. A total of 78.3% agreed or strongly agreed, while 11.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. Only 3.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed, with the remainder either unsure or preferring not to answer.

Question 9 then asked respondents to explain their answer in fewer than 250 words. There were 191 written responses.

The very first comment stated:

That comment immediately stood out because it closely reflects the concern we raised in our previous article. In the earlier records, several respondents appeared to suggest that they could not access a written comment box unless they changed their answer to one that aligned with the government’s position.

The remaining comments only made the discrepancy more striking. Of the 191 responses to Question 9, we identified only one that was clearly and unambiguously positive about the information received from a health-care provider (the one above). One additional respondent said the information had been clearly explained, but also stated that they opposed MAiD and considered it unethical. Another 12 comments were unclear about whether the respondent believed the information had been understandable or whether they agreed or disagreed with MAiD.

By our calculation, approximately 93% of the written comments were clearly consistent with disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement in Question 8 or a general opposition to MAiD (24 state they wanted information but couldn’t get it). Yet only 3.3% of respondents who answered Question 8 actually selected one of those responses.

There may, of course, be another explanation for this discrepancy. Response bias is one possibility. But when nearly four out of five respondents selected a positive answer, yet only one of 191 comments clearly reflected that same positive experience, the discrepancy becomes difficult to dismiss as simply a matter of who chose to leave a comment.

We have now written back to the Alberta government explaining that the disclosure did not provide the records we requested. We are again seeking the survey logic, branching and skip logic, conditional display rules, platform configuration records and any other documentation showing when respondents were permitted to access the written comment fields. We have also asked, if possible, for access to a functioning or archived copy of the survey so that this can be tested directly.

This is where we could use some help.

Our audience includes people with a wide range of professional backgrounds and experience, and access-to-information disputes are still relatively new territory for us. We are learning as we go, but the evidence raises a serious question about whether everyone who completed this government consultation was given the same opportunity to explain their answers.

If you have experience contesting an access-to-information release, working with survey platforms, reviewing conditional survey logic or dealing with Alberta’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, we would be grateful for any guidance. In particular, we would like to know whether there are other records we should be requesting, other arguments we should be making, or another plausible explanation for the dramatic difference between the multiple-choice results and the written comments.

We also believe there may be an important public-interest story here. At minimum, the records raise serious questions about whether everyone who completed Alberta’s MAiD survey was given the same opportunity to explain their answers—and the government has so far not provided the information needed to resolve those questions. If you work in media, know a journalist who may be interested, or have a contact at a news organization who covers Alberta politics, health policy, government transparency or access to information, we would be grateful for an introduction. We are happy to share the records we have obtained, our analysis of the responses and the correspondence relating to our efforts to obtain the survey logic.

Whatever someone’s position on MAiD, a public consultation should be conducted transparently, and every participant should have an equal opportunity to be heard. We do not yet know with certainty whether the comment fields were conditionally restricted. But we believe the evidence is strong enough that the question deserves a clear answer—and possibly much greater public attention.

Thank you for supporting our work,

Paul and Kim

Leave a comment

In BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, Ramona Coelho, David Shannon, and Trudo Lemmens used a selection of complex cases reviewed by the committee to argue that the cases demonstrate systemic failures in Canada's MAiD safeguards and expose fundamental weaknesses in the oversight of the country's MAiD systems.

Our View

We believe that conclusion goes well beyond what the committee’s reports can support.

Even the title of their article—Safeguard failures in Canada’s MAiD system—goes beyond what the committee’s reports found. The MDRC reviews a small number of purposively selected cases involving unusually difficult legislative, clinical, social, or intersectional circumstances to understand those deaths and any issues arising, generate discussion and reflection, and identify opportunities to improve MAiD practice. The committee explicitly cautions that the circumstances of the deaths reviewed are "not representative of most MAiD deaths."1

Coelho, Shannon, and Lemmens may believe that safeguards failed in the cases reviewed. But presenting those cases as evidence of failures across Canada’s MAiD system is a much broader claim—one the committee’s reports do not support.

The cases do discuss important questions about capacity, voluntariness, caregiver influence, access to care, and the interpretation of eligibility criteria. That is precisely why the committee exists: to examine difficult cases and identify opportunities to improve practice.

In our view, however, Coelho, Shannon, and Lemmens have used those exceptional cases to support much broader claims that Canada’s MAiD system is fundamentally broken. A claim that extends beyond the journal article, particularly in the public commentary of Coelho and Lemmens.

They are entitled to oppose Canada's MAiD laws and safeguards.2 But cases deliberately selected for review because they raise unusually difficult questions cannot reasonably be presented as representative of Canada's MAiD system.

Konia Trouton’s Response

Trouton, with contributions from four other committee members—Donna Stewart, Kevin Reel, Bill Wong, and Osmaan Sheikh—has rejected this interpretation, arguing that it misrepresents the committee's mandate and what can reasonably be concluded from its reports.

Because this exchange appeared in an academic journal, it may not have reached the wider audience it deserves. With the authors’ permission, we are reproducing the response below in full.

Share

Konia Trouton, Physician, MAID Practitioner, Clinical Professor University Health Network

Other Contributors:

Donna Stewart, Psychiatrist, MAiD Practitioner, University Professor; Kevin Reel, Practicing Health Care Ethicist, Occupational Therapist, Assistant Professor; Bill Wong, Anesthesiologist, Medical Director MAiD, Assistant Professor; Osmaan Sheikh, Family Physician, MAiD Practitioner, Assistant Professor

The Committee Reports

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2024 0 Marginalized Data Perspectives

168KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2024 1 Waivers Of Final Consent

464KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2024 2 Complex Medical Conditions With Non Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Deaths

298KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2024 3 Navigating Vulnerability In Non Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Deaths

658KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2024 4 Navigating Complex Issues Within Same Day And Next Day Maid Provisions

426KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2025 1 Evaluating Incurability Advanced States Of Irreversible Decline In Capacity And Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Death

475KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maid Death Review Committee Report 2025 2 Navigating Maid With Persons With Dementia

787KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This is one of those questions.

Over the past month, I have had two major surgeries. Shortly after the surgery I had earlier this week, we experienced a frightening event—the kind of event that spurs you into action, as they often do.

After arriving on the unit from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), I was sitting up in bed chatting with Kim about everything that was going on when I suddenly started to feel strange. These things are hard to explain afterwards. There was just a sense that something was wrong.

At first, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to scare Kim. That was a mistake.

I started feeling worse and finally told her I didn’t feel well. I was nauseated and lightheaded, and my vision was beginning to tunnel. That was the last thing I remember.

Apparently, I became unresponsive. My skin changed to ashen grey, my breathing slowed and became shallow. Kim called for help. When the nurses arrived they could not find my pulse. That, combined with my shallow breathing and sudden unresponsiveness, warranted calling a code blue.1

There is a button on the wall that initiates the code. The alert goes to the hospital switchboard, which announces it over the speakers throughout the hospital. Wherever members of the code team are, they are notified and respond immediately.

A code blue is controlled chaos. Within moments, the room fills with people. Nurses, doctors, and respiratory therapists arrive. Phlebotomists, unit nurses, site leadership, clinical pharmacists, and clinical resource nurses and educators may also be present. It is an all-hands-on-deck kind of party.

Everyone in the room knows exactly what they're supposed to do, but to a loved one watching it unfold, it can feel like the entire world has suddenly been turned upside down.

When the first members of the code team entered my room, they asked Kim and the unit nurses the most important question:

“Full code” essentially means: Do everything necessary.

Chest compressions. Intubation. Mechanical ventilation. Transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). Whatever medically appropriate interventions are required to try to keep the person alive.

There are other “code” options, and the right code status depends on the person, their health condition, their goals and values, and what treatments are likely to help them.

The options we are most familiar with look something like the following, and will resemble the options used in many healthcare settings:

• DNR M1: No CPR. Supportive care, symptom management, and comfort measures only. Allow a natural death.

• DNR M2: No CPR. M1 care as above, plus therapeutic measures and medications to manage acute reversible conditions within the current care setting. If the person is in residential care or hospice, transfer to an acute-care hospital would generally not occur except in special circumstances, such as a fracture.

• DNR M3: No CPR. M2 care as above, plus admission to an acute-care hospital for medical or surgical treatment when indicated. No transfer to Critical Care.

• DNR C1: No CPR. Maximum therapeutic effort, including transfer to Critical Care, but not including chest compressions, intubation, or mechanical ventilation.

• DNR C2: No CPR. Maximum therapeutic effort, including transfer to Critical Care, intubation, and mechanical ventilation, but not including chest compressions.

• CPR C2 (Full Code): The “do everything” option.

  ---

Confused yet?

You’re not alone.

Deciding what code status is right for you or someone you love can be one of the most difficult healthcare decisions you, your loved ones, and your care team make.

Code status is often discussed during a hospital admission, but it should be part of a larger and more important conversation related to advance care planning. The forms and terminology used for code status and advance care planning in hospitals can differ from the documents used in the community, and they vary from province to province in Canada and from country to country around the world. Don’t worry if the examples in this article don’t look exactly like the forms where you live. The principles are the same: think about your wishes, talk about them with the people you trust, and document them using the forms appropriate for your jurisdiction and care setting.

Subscribe now

As many of you know, Kim and I are registered nurses. She knows my code status. We have talked about it many times including what specific interventions I would want (and would not want) if certain medical events were to occur.

We are not strangers to these conversations.

And yet, at that moment, without warning, Kim was asked how far the medical team should go if my heart or breathing stopped.

Are you or your loved ones ready for that question?

Have you talked about what you would want if your health suddenly changed for the worse?

If you haven’t discussed your future healthcare wishes with the people closest to you—or put those wishes in writing—you are not alone. Only approximately half of Canadians report having had these conversations, while fewer than one in five have actually written an advance care plan.

Kim and I haven't written advance care plans.

As experienced as we are, and as often as we encourage other people to communicate their wishes, we were not as prepared for this event as we could have been.

As we should have been.

Obviously, I’m doing okay. I am writing this post from the hospital, where I will remain for at least the next few days. I look forward to getting home to more cuddles with Reggie (and his brother Marley).

My medical emergency turned out not to be too serious. It was likely related to some combination of blood loss during surgery, stress, hypotension, and being a little too “dry” to maintain adequate blood flow to my brain.

But in that moment, we did not know what was happening. And we did not know what was going to happen next.

Actually, I wasn’t aware of any of it. Kim was left to deal with all of that alone. I guess that is the point of this post.

Don’t leave your loved ones alone in that moment.

Prepare them for the decisions they may one day be asked to make if you are unable to make them yourself. Create a document that can guide them if someone suddenly asks:

“What is their code status?”

Or, more broadly:

“What would they want us to do now?”

Leave a comment

That’s the lesson we’ve learned. We need to complete formal Advance Care Plans. Here in British Columbia, that can be found in the BC Ministry of Health’s Advance Care Planning Guide.

We’ve provided links to the different Advance Care Planning guides and webpages for the different provinces and territories below. But honestly, the best place to go for all that information is Dying with Dignity Canada’s Education & Resources page. There you’ll find everything from advance care planning materials and information about palliative and hospice care to caregiver supports, bereavement services, mental health and disability resources, community programs, and, of course, links to information about medical assistance in dying.

You may have noticed that, until now, we haven’t mentioned medical assistance in dying. That is because advance care planning is about much more than any one healthcare decision. The most important thing is that the people who may one day have to speak for you understand your goals, your values, and what matters most to you.

But, since much of our work focuses on MAiD, it’s worth mentioning one important point:

In Canada, you cannot request or consent to MAiD in an advance care plan or advance directive, and a substitute decision-maker cannot make that decision for you.

But that does not mean conversations about MAiD can’t be part of advance care planning discussions.

If you have strong feelings about MAiD—whether you would never consider it, whether you think you might, or whether you’re simply unsure—talk about those wishes with the people closest to you. Those conversations cannot authorize MAiD in the future, but they can help your loved ones better understand your values and the kinds of care that matter most to you if the topic ever arises.

Like every other advance care planning conversation, the goal is not to predict every future decision. It is to help the people who love you understand how you think about those decisions.

Thank you. Take care of yourself. Take care of each other.

Paul

Advance Care Planning Guides and Documents:

British Columbia; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Yukon; Northwest Territories; Nunavut; Ontario; Québec; New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Prince Edward Island; Newfoundland & Labrador.

Share

The Globe limits letters to the editor to 150 words. Here, we’d like to expand on the reasoning behind our response.

Some readers might be surprised to hear that we are not opposed to additional regulations, restrictions, or safeguards on access to MAiD in principle. What we require is that any additional restriction, safeguard, or regulation be based in fact, supported by established ethical and legal principles, and responsive to a real and demonstrable need to protect the public and the integrity of MAiD eligibility.

Many of Dr. Coelho's suggestions do not meet that bar. Her suggestions of widespread noncompliance are serious allegations that require compelling evidence, not inferences drawn from isolated cases or reports that were never designed to determine whether individual patients were appropriately found eligible for MAiD.

What continues to amaze us, though perhaps it should not, is how quickly some people seem willing to deviate from basic ethical principles once MAiD is involved.

You need look no further than many of the more militantly anti-MAiD organizations and commentators who seem to feel little responsibility to accurately represent MAiD, or the people who support a capable person’s right to choose it.

This is, to a degree, to be expected. Personal moral commitments vary and can be applied selectively. People are allowed to oppose MAiD for religious, philosophical, ideological, or personal reasons. That is their right.1 But medical ethics are different.2 They cannot be set aside simply because the patient’s decision is one some people find uncomfortable—nor can they be selectively applied only when the outcome aligns with one’s personal beliefs.

Principles like patient autonomy, privacy and confidentiality, and nonmaleficence are not optional. They can be limited only when there is a serious and pressing need to do so, and only after a thorough, individualized assessment supported by strong clinical justification.3

Dr. Coelho’s article points to isolated cases and statistics as evidence of that pressing need—cases and statistics we believe she has grossly misrepresented.

No one is denying there have been cases that raise concerns. Some cases deserve careful examination. A small number may even warrant professional investigation or reprimand. But that is very different from claiming these cases are representative of how MAiD is administered and regulated across Canada. That would be an opinion that is unsupported by the facts.

And these cases certainly do not justify the wholesale abandonment of basic ethical principles and patient rights.

Yet that is the conclusion Dr. Coelho appears to reach:

• Patient autonomy should not be respected, even if multiple medical professionals agree the person is fully informed and capable, and their request meets the legal threshold for MAiD eligibility.

• Additional days of unnecessary suffering should be imposed, even where there is no compelling ethical or medical reason for doing so.

• Privacy and confidentiality should be weakened if a family member disagrees with an informed and capable person’s choice, so that family have an opportunity to override that person’s autonomous and capable choice.

Nothing in Dr. Coelho’s writing justifies any of this.4 What she suggests is nothing short of an assault on patient privacy and autonomy, not to mention their right to not have unnecessary suffering inflicted upon them.

We understand that Dr. Coelho has profound opposition to many aspects of medical assistance in dying in Canada. But proposals that would create additional suffering, compromise patient confidentiality, and override patient autonomy require much stronger justification than Dr. Coelho provides.5

The issue is not whether MAiD should be carefully regulated. Of course it should be. Nor is the issue whether oversight, transparency, accountability, or clinical practice around MAiD can be improved. Of course they can, as they can in every area of health care across Canada. The issue is whether those improvements require treating MAiD as an exception to ordinary medical ethics.

There is nothing wrong with improving safeguards, oversight, transparency, or professional accountability. Those improvements should always be open to discussion. But they do not require abandoning the ethical principles that are supposed to protect patients in the first place.

Leave a comment

Share

Here is the full text of our letter to the editor, published on July 3:

We’ve also updated our misinformation resources page with a list of helpful news articles and published (and freely available) papers on recognizing, understanding, and combating misinformation.

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/books-and-articles-on-misinformation

For this edition of Recent MAiD Misinformation, we have everything from claims that the French government is offering older people euthanasia rather than air conditioning, to a claim that people are being hunted for death in palliative care units across Canada.

As always, you can find recent MAiD misinformation on our website, linked below. If you come across anything we have not covered, please email us or fill in the form on the main page of our website.

Recent MAiD Misinformation

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-the-french-government-is-offering-seniors-maid-instead-of-air-conditioning

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-allowing-maid-means-skipping-to-the-end-because-the-beginning-and-middle-are-expensive

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-banning-maid-for-mental-illness-will-save-thousands-of-lives

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-palliative-care-is-dangerous-and-patients-are-being-hunted-there-for-maid

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-people-must-agree-to-organ-donation-in-order-to-have-maid

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claims-go-unchallenged-in-triggernometrys-interview-with-kelsi-sheren

Leave a comment

Share

Advance Requests for MAiD

We were invited to give a talk and answer questions at a seniors’ health expo recently. The room was packed, there were lots of great questions.

One thing that has become increasingly obvious over the past couple of years is that one of the biggest question seniors have isn’t about whether MAiD should exist. It isn’t about the medications or how the assessments work (though they do want to know this as well). More often than not, it’s some version of this:

“What happens if I lose capacity? How do I make sure MAiD is still available to me? Can I put it in an advance directive?”

We’ve now spoken to enough seniors’ groups that we don’t think this is a coincidence anymore. In fact, we can’t think of a single presentation where advance requests hasn’t come up. Sometimes it’s the first question. Sometimes it’s the last. But it always comes up.

Whether the government ultimately decides to expand advance requests nationally is a policy decision they are going to have to make soon, because it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that this is something many Canadians want available to them. Quebec recognized that over a year ago, and the National Conversation on Advance Requests for MAiD report suggests the federal government has recognized that as well. This might be the next big step forward in honouring Canadians’ desire to have control over their end of life choices.

But something else dawned on us that day.

Education vs. Persuasion

In planning our presentation introduction, we realized that every single presentation we’ve ever given starts almost exactly the same way.

We tell people that we are not there to convince them to support MAiD.

Obviously we know we say that, because we’ve written it into our slide deck, but we hadn’t really stopped to think about what that says about how we approach this work.

We genuinely do not belief it’s our job to persuade anyone what they should believe about medical assistance in dying. Whether someone supports it, opposes it, or is still trying to figure out how they feel is an incredibly personal conclusion to come to. That’s their decision, not ours.

Our job is much simpler than that.1

Our job is to provide accurate information, answer questions honestly, correct misinformation when we see it, and treat people with enough respect to trust that they are capable of making up their own minds.

When someone comes up to us after a presentation and says, “Thank you. I still don’t believe in MAiD,” our response has always been the same.

“That’s okay.”

If someone has listened to the information, considered the evidence, asked questions, and arrived at a conclusion they believe is right for them, then we’ve done exactly what we hoped to do. Maybe even more importantly, we don’t have to try and convince people what to think. MAiD already has extremely high levels of support among the Canadian public—consistently around 80%.

The more we thought about it afterwards, though, the more we realized how different our approach feels from many of the people and organizations that campaign against MAiD. We spend a lot of time following these groups because understanding misinformation means understanding how it spreads. We read it. We watch it. We fact-check it. And if anything, those tactics seem to be ramping up rather than slowing down.

By attending some of their events or following their work, it does not take long to understand that their goal isn’t simply to educate people and let them make up their own minds. The goal often seems to be to persuade people to adopt a particular conclusion, and the fear-based tactics, emotionally charged stories, and misinformation are all in service of that goal.

Worse still, it often feels as though there is a purity test. If you don't arrive at exactly the same conclusion they have, there isn't much room for disagreement. You aren't simply an individual with a different perspective—you've put yourself outside the movement and joined the other camp.

That’s an asymmetry we’ve become increasingly aware of. We will never approach MAiD discussions or discourse the way these groups do.

We are perfectly comfortable with someone reading everything we have ever written and deciding they still don’t support MAiD.

They’re still welcome in our community.

They’re still invited to ask us questions.

They’re still encouraged to challenge us.

They’re still free to disagree with us

But they are not welcome to spread lies, fear, and conspiracies. That we do not tolerate. Because our goal has never been agreement. Our goal is that people make one of the most personal decisions they’ll ever face based on accurate information rather than misinformation, fear, or manipulation.

If they do that and reach a different conclusion than we have, we can live with that.

Leave a comment

In a recent webinar, Gordon Friesen, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, described palliative care as a place where patients are “hunted” for death. He claimed that palliative care physicians and nurses “coax” patients into MAiD, that palliative care has become a “pipeline” for “medical homicide,” and suggested that vulnerable patients should fear being steered toward death, including through what he calls “stealth euthanasia.”

More troubling still, he argues that this is not the result of individual clinicians acting improperly. He claims that promoting MAiD has become the accepted function of palliative care itself and that healthcare providers now have an obligation and duty to advance MAiD as a matter of policy.

These are not simply criticisms of MAiD, they are attacks on palliative care itself. And this is more evidence that this organization does not deserve a position in any serious end-of-life conversation.

Statements like these risk frightening seriously ill people away from care that could relieve suffering, improve quality of life, and support patients and families during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. These statements should be denounced in the strongest way possible.

People should not be afraid of palliative care. Every day, dedicated physicians, nurses, social workers, care aides, and countless others work tirelessly to provide comfort, relieve suffering, and support patients and families at the end of life. Palliative care is not something to fear. It is where some of the most compassionate, patient-centred, and meaningful healthcare in our system takes place.

We will have much more to say about these horrendous comments in the coming days. For now, we encourage you to watch the video or read the statements below for yourself.

They speak volumes.

Share

The low view count of this video should not be mistaken for a lack of influence; the EPC is frequently invited to participate in parliamentary hearings and public policy discussions concerning MAiD and end-of-life care. They also report receiving more than 10,000 visits to their blog each day and have stated their intention to expand this type of messaging in the future.

Specific quotes with timestamps:

A lesser-known, but potentially just as harmful, conspiracy theory Sheren spreads is about MAiD and organ donation.

The overarching theme of this particular conspiracy theory is that MAiD is, in large part—or even completely—a way for the government to get access to more organs for transplantation. This conspiracy often comes with overtones of financial incentives and the black-market sale of organs. “Organs are very, very, very expensive,” don’t you know? (44:17)

This conspiracy tends to come in two flavours:

1. That in order to be approved for MAiD, the person MUST agree to donate their organs.

2. The government, organ donation programs, the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP), and individual doctors and nurse practitioners are colluding to coerce more people into having MAiD so their organs can be harvested.

We’re going to look at both of these conspiracy theories, including why it is important to hold Sheren accountable for spreading them. We’ll then take a look at the actual organ donation data so you can refute these claims when you encounter them. Finally, we’ll share what this looks like at the bedside, and how these claims create real harm for real people.

1. Mandatory Organ Donation After MAiD

2. Sheren’s Response

3. The Organ Donation Collusion, Coercion, and Hidden Incentives Claim

4. Organ Donation Data

5. Organ Donation After MAiD in Canada

6. What This Looks Like at the Bedside

Mandatory Organ Donation After MAiD

Sheren has been making this claim for a while, but it came to a head recently with CTV News interviewed Gwen Roley from Fact Check AFP (AFP). During the interview, Roley described some of Sheren’s social media posts as “misinformation.”1 We shared that video as an example of “Sheren getting exposed again as the spreader of misinformation she is.”

One of Sheren’s claims that CTV/AFP debunked was that a person must agree to donate their organs in order to be approved for MAiD.

Here is the quote AFP cited, taken from an interview Sheren did on the YouTube channel Blendr News:

To our ears, that is a pretty clear statement of fact—that agreeing to organ donation is a requirement for MAiD approval—and then a question asking why such a requirement exists. In other words, the statement appears to presuppose that the requirement is real and then seeks an explanation for why it is required, rather than questioning whether it exists in the first place.

Apparently, that is not how Sheren understands her statement. She claimed on X, and later in a YouTube video, that her entire statement was one big question and that she never said organ donation was mandatory.

She criticised CTV/AFP for not understanding what a question was. She also criticised them for not reaching out to her first for comment or clarification—more on that in a bit.

So what do you think? Was her statement just a question, or was it a statement of fact followed by a question? Maybe if we look at other similar statements Sheren has made, it will clarify whether she believes, as a matter of fact, that approval for MAiD is contingent on agreeing to donate your organs.

Sheren’s other statements about mandatory organ donation

In that same Blendr News video, Sheren also stated:

Seems pretty clear to us. How about other videos? On her own YouTube channel, The Kelsi Sheren Perspective, she has said:

And:

And during an interview on the YouTube channel Sarah Westall:

It would appear to us that Kelsi Sheren has stated on multiple occasions that a person must agree to donate their organs in order to receive MAiD. These statements are presented without qualification or equivocation and, in our view, leave little room for misinterpretation.

But since Sheren criticized CTV/AFP for not reaching out to her for comment or clarification, we decided to extend her that courtesy and emailed her for comment. You can imagine how that went.

Sheren’s Response

On June 17, 2026, we emailed Sheren, notifying her that we were writing an article about MAiD and organ donation, and asked for clarification on the statements we listed above. We have attached a copy of that email here.

Email To Kelsi Sheren Regarding Maid And Organ Donation

482KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

She did not respond to the email. However, she did post a video on her YouTube channel about our request, titled “My On-the-Record Answer to MAiD in Canada About Organ Donation.”

A few interesting things came out of that video.

First, she doubled down by claiming that she did not say that agreeing to be a donor is mandatory in order to have MAiD and that she just “asked a question.” We do not believe that characterization is supported by the statement itself. Grammatically, the statement consists of a declaration that organ donation is required for MAiD, followed by a question asking why such a requirement exists.

Taken together, Sheren’s statements appear to leave little room for ambiguity about her understanding of the relationship between MAiD and organ donation.

But she actually went further in her denial.

In the video, she claimed she didn’t actually say the words she said, which is interesting because both statements are available on video.

Here is what Sheren said, compared with what she now claims she said.

What she said in the Blendr News video:

What she now claims she said:

We’ve highlighted the important change from her original statement (the addition of “most of the time”). At some point, repeatedly saying one thing on camera and later claiming you said something else stops looking like a misunderstanding.

This is important because it suggests that Sheren recognizes the problem with her original statement and is now trying to revise history so it seems she didn’t actually say it. That is a win for truth. A small win, but a win nonetheless.

It would seem needless to say, but neither of these statements reflects the truth about MAiD. Agreeing to organ donation is never a requirement to be eligible for MAiD in Canada.

Second, she has now said, explicitly and on the record, that “No,” Organ donation is not a requirement for MAiD approval. (6:00) We will hold her to that statement.

However, we suspect this won’t stop her from advancing the broader MAiD-and-organ-donation conspiracy theory, including allegations of collusion, coercion, and hidden incentives to increase organ supply. But it does eliminate one of its most easily disproven claims. A public acknowledgment that organ donation is not required to access MAiD is a step toward correcting the record and reduces at least some of the harm caused by the misinformation surrounding this issue.

Third, Sheren is very clearly moderating the words she uses when talking about MAiD assessors and providers, and organizations like CAMAP and Dying With Dignity Canada. (3:42) This is a trend we’ve noticed lately. Instead of calling MAiD providers “killers” or “psychopaths,” as she normally does, here she says:

Whether due to YouTube moderation policies or some other reason, the language she uses appears noticeably more restrained. Another win.

Fourth, her backpedalling and the amount of time and effort Sheren has spent responding on X and YouTube suggest that being challenged on this claim bothers her. That is also a win.

People who build their public profile on misinformation rely on confidence, certainty, and the appearance of credibility. When they are forced to spend their time defending false claims, correcting the record, and responding to criticism, that credibility begins to erode. We should not underestimate the importance of this. If we want truth to be at the centre of these conversations, then we need to continue challenging falsehoods, documenting the evidence, and holding public figures accountable when they get the facts wrong.

That is not a small task. Anti-MAiD zealots can produce misinformation far faster than it can be debunked. For some of them spreading misinformation about MAiD is their full time job. Countering that requires a coordinated effort, and no single person or organization can do it alone. We are only one small part of that effort, but every false claim challenged is one less left unopposed.

Share

The Organ Donation Collusion, Coercion, and Hidden Incentive Claims

Sheren has claimed, more times than we can count, that MAiD is a way to get more organs—often with claims about financial incentives and black-market sales of those organs. She claims the government, CAMAP, Canadian Blood Services, and individual MAiD providers are all colluding together toward that goal.

Her main “proof” of these claims is that “Canada’s organ donation rates are skyrocketing right now” (22:21), and she explicitly ties that claim to the increase in MAiD cases each year.

The truth is, Canada’s organ donation rates are not “skyrocketing”—but for the sake of those awaiting a transplant, we wish they were. We’ll show that data in a second, but first, here is a sample of claims made by Sheren:

If that doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory, we don’t know what does. But maybe it isn’t a conspiracy theory. Maybe the organ donor numbers match what Sheren is saying. So let’s take a look. We’re sure you’ll be unsurprised to see that the data refutes everything Sheren says.

Organ Donation Data

In 2015, the year before MAiD was legalized, there were 649 deceased donors in Canada. That number grew to 888 in 2025—a 36.8% increase. However, total deaths also increased over that period by 23.5%.2 It is hard to see that as “skyrocketing” organ donation rates in Canada.

When we compare that to our neighbours to the south, it becomes even clearer that, if anything, Canada is lagging behind in organ donation rates.

In 2015, there were 9,079 deceased organ donors in the United States. That number grew to 16,553 in 2025, an increase of 82.3%.3

When we look at the percentage or people who donate after death in each country between 2015 and 2024, the disparity is even starker.

Canada’s percentage of people who donated after death in 2015 was 0.25%. That increased to 0.27% by 2024. Not exactly a dramatic jump.4

In America, the percentage of people who donated after death grew from 0.33% in 2015 to 0.55% in 2024.

When we look internationally, Canada’s organ donor rate looks even worse. Spain, with a population approximately 20% larger than Canada’s, had 2,562 deceased organ donors in 2023. That’s 2.7 times more than Canada’s record of 951 in 2023.

Data from the International Registry on Organ Donation and Transplant (IRODaT) shows that Canada is actually 12th in Worldwide Actual Deceased Organ Donors 2024 (PMP), behind Spain, USA, Portugal, Czech Republic, Italy, Croatia, Finland, France, Belarus, and Lithuania.5

https://www.irodat.org/?p=database

It would seem clear that Canada’s organ donor rate has increased only modestly and certainly not at a rate that could be described as “skyrocketing.” We also do not have the “highest organ donation rates,” not by a long shot.

If past is prologue, we have a pretty good idea of what Sheren might say next. She would probably try to revise history (again) by saying she meant that Canada has the highest rate of organ donation after MAiD. Of course, looking at her comments on this topic above, it is very clear that she is talking about Canada’s organ donation rate in general and then claims that it correlates with the increase in MAiD deaths each year. But we’ll see if she tries to make that claim anyway.

So what about organ donation after MAiD in Canada? It does happen, as it does in only three other countries (to the best of our knowledge): Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain.6

Note that America does not have organ donation after MAiD, and its donor rates increased far more than Canada’s. Why is that? We’re just asking a question. 😀

Organ Donation After MAiD in Canada

Canada does allow people to make an organ donation after MAiD if they meet the standard organ donation eligibility criteria. But because the majority of people who have MAiD have a cancer diagnosis,7 they are typically unable to make solid-organ donations (some can make other donations, such as eye donations).

Between 2016 and 2020, there were 97 people who made an organ donation after having MAiD.8 The numbers increased to 58, 57, 58, 63, and 69 from 2021 to 2025.9

Donors who have MAiD make up between 7% and 8% of all deceased donors in Canada, a number that has remained relatively stable since 2021.

But only 0.38% of MAiD deaths in 2024 included an organ donation.10

Again, that hardly seems like a skyrocketing rate. MAiD does contribute to the annual increase in organ donations, but to a small degree. When we bring all this information together, it’s hard to describe Sheren’s claims of a runaway organ-harvesting cabal, intent on accessing as many organs as possible, as anything other than a conspiracy theory.

Leave a comment

What This Looks Like at the Bedside

Over the years, we have spoken with many patients and families preparing for a MAiD provision. Certain themes come up again and again. People want to know what will happen, whether their loved one will be comfortable through the MAiD provision, and what they should expect during the process.

More recently, we have noticed another pattern emerging. Some families arrive carrying fears that do not come from their healthcare team, but rather from things they have read online, heard on podcasts, or seen on social media.

We have had conversations with people who were worried that MAiD medications would cause their loved one to “drown.” Others have expressed concerns about organ donation, asking “Are you going to take their organs?” These are not questions that arise from the clinical reality of MAiD. They are questions that arise from misinformation, the kind of misinformation Sheren spreads regularly.

When these concerns are voiced, they can usually be addressed. We can explain what the medications do, how organ donation works, and what safeguards exist. Most people leave those conversations reassured.

But not everyone asks.

For every one that asks the questions, there are likely many others who do not. They might live with those questions for the rest of their lives. Did their loved one suffer? Did someone take their organs without consent? Did they sell them on the black market, or make “skin wallets” out of them, as Sheren has suggested?

That is real harm done to real people!

One of the privileges of this work is witnessing families come together at the end of a person’s life. In the midst of grief, people share stories, express gratitude, reconcile differences, and say goodbye. These moments are often profoundly human and deeply meaningful. When misinformation intrudes on those moments, it does not merely distort a public policy debate. It creates unnecessary fear and anxiety for patients and the people who love them.

Unfortunately, the harm from Sheren’s misinformation doesn’t stop there. One of the most common themes in the comment sections of her videos and posts is people repeating the organ donation conspiracy theory. A significant number also state that they have removed themselves from donor registries and are no longer donating blood. They also encourage others to do the same.

If even a small number of people act on this misinformation by removing themselves from donor registries, the impact could be felt for years.

That is the type of harm we are trying to combat and prevent here at MAiD in Canada. If you want to help, please like, comment, and share this post as widely as you can. The more people that understand the truth behind these claims, and have the knowledge to refute them, the more harm we can all prevent.

Thank you everyone for supporting us in this work, and for helping us fight all this misinformation.

Paul and Kim

MAiDinCanada2016@outlook.com

Leave a comment

Share

When we were first told that our friends over at Dying With Dignity were launching a new website about end-of life planning, we planned to simply share it on our social media channels. But now, after spending a couple days exploring all the site’s resources and information, we realize it would be a disservice not to explain why we think it’s an incredibly valuable resource for every Canadian.

Launched on June 17th, 2026 wecanchoose.ca is a website designed to help people in Canada access clear, practical, and compassionate information about end-of-life care, Advance Care Planning, and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).

“But aren’t there already resources like this online, including on dyingwithdignity.ca?” Yes, there are. But we have not found a resource that is as well organized, easy to navigate, clear, and comprehensive as wecanchoose.ca.

MAiD

There are, of course, extensive resources dedicated to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). Visitors will find clear explanations of what MAiD is, how the process works, and detailed information about the eligibility criteria and safeguards that govern MAiD in Canada.

The site also provides practical guidance on what to expect during a MAiD assessment and how to prepare for it. For those who ultimately choose MAiD, there is compassionate and comprehensive information about what to expect before, during, and after a MAiD provision, helping individuals and their loved ones navigate the process with greater confidence and understanding.

Emotional Wellbeing

There is also an entire section devoted to emotional wellbeing. Any death—including a MAiD death—can be an emotionally challenging experience for everyone involved. The site provides thoughtful guidance on topics such as coping with difficult emotions, having meaningful end-of-life conversations, and supporting loved ones through grief and loss.

It also explores ways to create a lasting legacy, helping individuals make the most of the time they have with family and friends. Whether you are considering MAiD yourself, supporting someone who is, or simply planning ahead, these resources can help people navigate the emotional aspects of end-of-life care with greater understanding, connection, and compassion.

End-of-Life Planning

Discussing all of your end-of-life care options is an important part of every MAiD assessment, but it is also something everyone should consider long before they ever face a serious illness. These conversations are valuable regardless of whether MAiD is something you would ever choose.

For many people, end-of-life planning begins with creating an Advance Care Plan, identifying a substitute decision-maker, and ensuring their financial and legal affairs are in order. Wecanchoose.ca provides practical guidance and resources to help Canadians navigate these important decisions, making it easier to communicate their wishes and prepare for whatever the future may hold.

What we have highlighted here is really only a small sample of what is available on Wecanchoose.ca. The site contains a wealth of information, tools, and resources designed to help Canadians navigate some of life’s most difficult conversations and decisions. Whether you are planning for the future, supporting a loved one, exploring end-of-life care options, or simply looking for reliable information, there is something here for everyone.

Most importantly, the information is presented in a way that is clear, compassionate, and easy to understand. In a world where health information can often feel overwhelming, confusing, or difficult to find, Wecanchoose.ca brings together an impressive collection of resources in one accessible place.

We encourage everyone to spend some time exploring the site for themselves. We are grateful that a resource like this now exists for Canadians, and we hope others find it as valuable and reassuring as we have.

Share

As nurses who have been involved with MAiD since its early years, we are continually amazed by the experiences we have had, the people we have worked alongside, and the organizations that continue to support choice for end of life. Most importantly, we are grateful to those who have shared their lived experiences with us—whether they were considering MAiD for themselves, supporting a loved one through the process, or reflecting on a MAiD death that has already occurred.

As healthcare providers, we have had the privilege of supporting patients and families throughout the MAiD process, including being present during provisions. Those experiences have left us with countless memories of courage, compassion, and connection. We have witnessed families come together, final words of love spoken, cultures and faith traditions honoured, and deeply personal choices respected.

As we mark this 10-year milestone, it is important to recognize the people who made it possible. The healthcare option that Canadians have today did not emerge on its own. It was secured through the efforts of individual people who were willing to share their stories, challenge existing laws, and advocate for change.

To understand the last decade of MAiD in Canada, we must honour those courageous Canadians who helped get us here—and those who continue to advocate for choice and change.

Sue Rodriguez

Sue Rodriguez was a British Columbia woman diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) at the age of 41. ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, gradually causing paralysis while often leaving cognitive abilities intact.

Following her diagnosis, Rodriguez launched a Charter challenge in British Columbia that ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Canada, referred to as Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General). Through that case, she sought the right to obtain assistance in ending her life at a time of her choosing.

Rodriguez is famously known for her statement “If I cannot give consent to my own death. Whose body is this? Who owns my life?”

On September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5–4 against Rodriguez, finding that the prohibition on assisted suicide in section 241(b) of the Criminal Code was constitutional. The majority acknowledged that the law deprived Rodriguez of autonomy over decisions concerning her own body and caused both physical and psychological suffering. In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasized the sanctity of life and the state’s interest in protecting vulnerable persons from potential abuse. The majority accepted that the blanket prohibition limited Rodriguez’s liberty and security of the person, but held that these limits were justified by broader societal concerns.

Although Rodriguez lost her case before the Supreme Court of Canada, she ultimately died peacefully in 1994 with the assistance of an unnamed physician, according to her close friend and former Member of Parliament Svend Robinson.

Rodriguez’s story, shared so publicly and courageously, sparked a national conversation about assisted dying. While she did not live to see the legal changes that followed, her challenge forced Canadians to confront difficult questions about autonomy, suffering, and end-of-life choice. Her legacy lies not only in opening the conversation, but in helping to lay the foundation for the legal and social changes that would eventually follow.

Kay Carter

Kay Carter was an 89-year-old British Columbia woman living with spinal stenosis, a progressive and debilitating condition that caused significant pain and loss of function. She described her body as “totally collapsing.” In January 2010, she travelled to Switzerland to access an assisted death through Dignitas.

The constitutional challenge that would eventually become Carter v. Canada was not filed until April 2011, more than a year after Kay Carter’s death. The original plaintiffs were her daughter, Lee Carter; her son-in-law, Hollis Johnson; the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; and Dr. William Shoichet. Gloria Taylor was added as plaintiff in June 2011.

Gloria Taylor

Gloria Taylor was a 63 year old British Columbia woman who was also living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). A highly independent woman who proudly spoke about her time riding motorcycles in an era when mostly men rode, she was now faced with progressive physical limitations.

“It is past time for the laws against assisted dying to be changed….I’m just doing this because I feel in my heart that it needs to be done and it’s time that it was done.” - Gloria Taylor

In June 2011, Taylor joined the Carter case to Canada’s prohibition on assisted dying. The British Columbia judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and granted Taylor a constitutional exemption that would have allowed her to access physician-assisted dying under specific circumstances. Before she could use that exemption, however, she died of complications related to ALS.

Carter v Canada Decision

On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided on Carter v. Canada, striking down the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted dying for competent adults suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions that caused enduring and intolerable suffering. The Supreme Court gave the government (a conservative government at that time) 12 months to produce legislation pertaining to assisted dying. Bill C-14 was introduced in April 2016 by the newly elected Liberal government and received Royal Assent on June 17, 2016. Bill C-14 was the original MAiD legislation and remained unchanged until March 17, 2021.

Although Taylor did not live to see the final outcome, her evidence became a key part of the legal record. Her affidavit and testimony are still frequently cited in discussions of the Carter decision and the evolution of Canadian assisted dying law.

Leave a comment

Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu

Jean Truchon was a Quebec man, in his 40’s, living with cerebral palsy. He experienced severe and irreversible physical limitations that he found intolerable, but because his natural death was not considered “reasonably foreseeable,” he was ineligible for MAiD under Bill C-14.

Nicole Gladu was a 73 year old Quebec woman who contracted polio as a child and later developed post-polio syndrome, a progressive condition that caused worsening weakness, fatigue, chronic pain, and loss of function. Despite significant physical limitations, she had a successful career in communications and was known as a determined advocate for disability rights and personal autonomy.

In 2017, Truchon and Gladu challenged both the federal and Quebec MAiD laws. They argued that requiring a person’s natural death to be reasonably foreseeable violated their Charter rights and unfairly excluded competent adults who would otherwise meet all the eligibility criteria for a medically assisted death.

On September 11, 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada that the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” requirement in the federal law—and the similar “end-of-life” requirement in Quebec’s law—were unconstitutional.

That decision was not appealed by the federal government. Instead, Parliament responded with the passing of Bill C-7, which came into effect on March 17, 2021, creating the Track 1 and Track 2 MAiD framework used today.

Truchon received MAiD in April 2020, nearly a year before Bill C-7 came into effect as a result of a constitutional exemption granted by the court to both Truchon and Gladu. Gladu died in 2022, at the age of 76, as a result of progression of her disease.

Audrey Parker

Audrey Parker was a 57 year old, Nova Scotia woman with breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and brain. She was approved for MAiD but, at that time, the law required that an individual be capable of providing consent immediately before the MAiD provision. Parker feared that if her cancer progressed and she lost decision-making capacity, she would lose access to MAiD altogether. As a result, she chose to receive MAiD earlier than she wanted, rather than risk becoming ineligible as a result of loss of capacity to give final consent.

In a public video message released shortly before her death, Parker said:

She urged the government to change the law so others would not face the same cruel choice.

Parker died on November 1, 2018. Her advocacy continued after her death and became a major influence on the development of Bill C-7. When Bill C-7 came into force on March 17, 2021, an amendment was created, often referred to as Audrey’s Amendment. This amendment created the waiver of final consent. It allows eligible Track 1 patients who are at risk of losing capacity before their chosen MAiD date to provide prior consent to receive MAiD.

Subscribe now

The fight for choice continues

Gaye and Jim O’Neill

The British Columbia case, O’Neill v. British Columbia (Minister of Health), is challenging the practice of forced transfers for MAiD from faith-affiliated healthcare centres. The case arose from the very public experience of Sam O’Neill, a 34-year-old with metastatic cervical cancer. O’Neill had already been found eligible for MAiD prior to her March 2023 admission to St Paul’s Hospital, a catholic based hospital that does not permit MAiD within its facility. She had the legal right to receive MAiD yet she was required to leave St. Paul’s Hospital in order for that care to be provided.

O’Neill was experiencing severe and complex pain that was difficult to manage even with minimal movement. For someone in that condition, a transfer across the city was not a minor inconvenience—it’s a significant physical burden. O’Neill had to be sedated to tolerate the transfer, resulting in an inability for her to have meaningful final moments with her family.

“Our daughter suffered a brutal forced transfer, out of St. Paul’s Hospital, because the Providence Health Care MAiD policy - set by THE Arch Bishop - would not allow her to receive Medical Assistance in Dying in their Catholic run (but publicly funded) hospital

Her final hour was unbearably painful And for Jim and me, Sam’s parents, her siblings, other family & friends in attendance, it was also traumatic and unbearably cruel to witness” - Gaye O’Neill at a press conference in Vancouver, B.C.

As a result, her parents, Jim and Gaye O’Neill, have launched a Charter challenge alongside Dr. Jyothi Jayaraman and Dying With Dignity Canada. The challenge focuses on Section 2(a) of the Charter, which protects freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to hold one’s own beliefs and to be free from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them. It also engages Section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

The hearing concluded before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2026, and the parties now await a decision from Justice Ronald Skolrood.

We have had the privilege of getting to know the O’Neills both inside and outside the courtroom. They have spoken openly about their lives, the challenges of the past several years, and what they hope this Charter challenge might achieve. Regardless of the outcome, they remain committed to pursuing the case as far as necessary, including to the Supreme Court of Canada if required.

Claire Elyse Brosseau

Claire Elyse Brosseau is a 49-year-old Toronto woman who has become one of the most prominent public advocates for extending eligibility for MAiD to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.

Brosseau has publicly stated:

“I have been diagnosed with a severe form of bipolar I disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, among other mental disorders. Over the past three decades, I have tried a wide variety of medications and treatments for my mental illness. Despite these efforts, my mental illness just continues to get worse. I have reached the limit of my ability to live like this—in a state of unrelenting suffering.”

She argues that the categorical exclusion of individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder violates their Charter rights. She has also spoken openly about the suffering caused by repeated governmental delays to the implementation of MAiD for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition (MD-SUMC), which was originally scheduled to come into force in 2023, then delayed to 2024, and subsequently postponed until March 17, 2027.

As Brosseau explained:

“I have been waiting for over five years for the government to live up to its promise to lift the ban on MAiD for persons with mental illness as their only condition…. I want to be clear about what these delays mean for me personally. Every month of delay is another month of suffering that I am told I must simply endure. I have been asked, again and again, to be patient. I was patient for years. The government’s unwillingness to respond to my claim and live up to its promises has pushed me to my absolute limit.”

In August 2024, Brosseau launched a constitutional challenge alongside Dying With Dignity Canada and Dr. Patricia Smith. The applicants argue that the continued exclusion of people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder from accessing MAiD violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently, Brosseau announced that she is seeking an urgent exemption from the current exclusion while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds through the courts.

Share

Thank you

From the bottom of our hearts, we want to thank every one of these individuals who has courageously fought for access to an assisted death in such a public way. Your willingness to share your stories, your suffering, and your hopes, has changed the lives of people across this country. We would not be here today without you.

To the organizations that have advocated, and continue to advocate, for choice: we are profoundly grateful. Your compassion and persistence have helped make space for people to be heard, respected, and supported.

To the health care providers who support choice with such compassion, integrity, and commitment: you are extraordinary individuals. The care you provide often happens quietly, without recognition, but it matters deeply. We have been so fortunate to work alongside many of you, and we are continually moved by the kindness and dignity you bring to this work.

To every Canadian who has spoken openly about their lived experience of choosing MAiD, or of supporting a loved one through MAiD: thank you for your bravery and honesty. These are not easy stories to tell, but by telling them, you have helped others feel less alone.

And finally, to every patient and loved one we have professionally supported through MAiD: it has been an honour to be trusted with even a small part of your journey. We carry those experiences with us, always.

It is, therefore, difficult to understand why the hosts, Kisin and Foster, chose to invite Sheren back to discuss a subject on which she has repeatedly demonstrated such a poor grasp of the facts. Perhaps they are completely unaware that much of what she says is inaccurate. It is also plausible they share her views on MAiD and are unconcerned about the accuracy of the information being presented. And we cannot ignore the reality that controversy and outrage generates far more views, engagement—and therefore revenue—than accurate, nuanced information ever will. Whatever the reason, the result is the same: hundreds of thousands of people are being exposed to a dishonest, misrepresented portrayal of MAiD.

The extent of this ignorance will be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Medical Assistance in Dying. And if Sheren takes issue with being called a conspiracist, the remedy is simple: stop presenting speculation, innuendo, and unsupported allegations as facts.

If Kisin and Foster truly “welcome experts from all points on the political spectrum for fact-based discussion,” why have they not invited someone onto the show who can accurately explain how MAiD works in Canada? Perhaps someone who can engage in a thoughtful, evidence-based discussion about its ethical, legal, and practical implications?

Reasonable people can and do hold very different views on MAiD, and those differences should be discussed openly. But meaningful public discourse requires a foundation in facts. The conversation around MAiD is far too important to be driven by misinformation, exaggeration, and fear and conspiracy-based narratives.

Triggernometry has published hours of content criticizing Canadian MAiD, yet appears to have featured only guests who share an anti-MAiD perspective. Where are the voices that support the current law, provide MAiD, study its outcomes, or defend it on ethical or constitutional grounds?

Simply asserting neutrality does not make it true. A one-sided guest list does not become balanced merely because the hosts claim balance as an ideal, just as Sheren calling herself an expert does not make it true. Expertise is demonstrated through knowledge, evidence, accuracy, and a willingness to engage seriously with competing viewpoints.

If Kisin and Foster are interested in speaking with a true expert, we have a few suggestions we’d be happy to share.

So, Konstantin and Francis, this rebuttal is for you. We hope you take some time to learn the facts about MAiD and consider the real-world consequences of facilitating the spread of misinformation about this legal and well regulated healthcare option.

Let’s look at some of the false information Kisin and Foster helped Sheren spread—again. For someone who claims to have spent years studying MAiD, Sheren demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of even its most basic legal, clinical, and procedural realities—apparently Triggernometry doesn’t have much of a fact-checking team either.

1. When Did Kay Carter Die?

2. Exploding Lungs

3. We Don’t Understand Propofol and Rocuronium?

4. The “We Paralyze You First” Myth, Again

5. Talking while in a Coma?

6. Approved for MAiD Because of a Genetic Marker?

7. Denmark…I Mean the Netherlands…No, Denmark. I’m Confused

8. Double-Blind? Double Wrong

9. Mandatory Organ Donation

10. We Don’t Use Food Preservatives For MAiD

11. MAiD Providers Are Not Above the Law

12. We Get Asked to Speak at These Events. Not the Other Way Around

13. Dismissing a Patient’s Own Testimony

14. One Standard for Me, Another for Thee?

15. Paid or Not Paid - Either Way Assessors Are Psychopaths

16. A Backup Plan Is Not a Failed Plan

17. Now We Know Why She Doesn’t Understand the Limits of Palliative Care

18. Not Every Death is a Failure a Care

19. Targeting the Vulnerable or The Great Replacement Theory? Pick One.

20. Hidden Data or All the Data?

Share

1. When Did Kay Carter Die?

Right from the start Sheren gets the history of Carter v. Canada and MAiD completely wrong. According to Sheren, Kay Carter herself “challenged the right to be able to die with her doctor’s assistance.” (4:08) This is completely false.

Kay Carter travelled to Switzerland and had an assisted death through Dignitas in January 2010. The court challenge was filed in April 2011 by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The original plaintiffs were Lee Carter (Kay’s daughter), Hollis Johnson (Kay’s son-in-law), the BC Civil Liberties Association, and Dr. William Shoichet. Gloria Taylor was added as a plaintiff in June 2011.

Kay Carter died more than a year before the constitutional challenge that ultimately became Carter v. Canada was launched!

Carter v. Canada is not an obscure piece of history; it is the very foundation upon which Canada’s MAiD legislation was built. This is not the first time we have heard Sheren get this important piece of MAiD history wrong, and based on her track record, we doubt it will be the last. One would think having a basic understanding of that history would be important to someone like Sheren. Apparently it is not.

This may not seem like a particularly important detail to get right, but it demonstrates how casually—and confidently—Sheren can claim to know something to be true while being completely wrong. At this point, it’s safe to say that this is not a bug in Sheren’s understanding of MAiD; it is a feature.

2. Exploding Lungs

It wouldn’t be a Kelsi Sheren video without the obligatory drowning claim, but this time she outdid herself. When Foster asks Sheren what pulmonary edema is,1 she responds:

We are certainly glad Sheren is not teaching human biology.

First, there is no evidence presented or published that pulmonary edema happens during or after MAiD. There is no reason to believe it is happening, and Sheren has not provided any new facts that would cause us to reexamine this false claim.

But back to Sheren’s ridiculous explanation for a second: pulmonary edema is not your lungs exploding. Pulmonary edema is the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, particularly within the parenchyma, which can lead to symptoms such as shortness of breath, respiratory distress, coughing, and low oxygen levels. While it can be a serious medical condition, it bears no resemblance to Sheren’s dramatic description of exploding lungs.

We have attended more than one hundred MAiD deaths and have never heard “gargling” sounds or observed any signs that would indicate pulmonary edema. The most common sounds heard during a provision is a few loud snores as the midazolam and propofol take effect and the person falls into a deep state of unconsciousness. We assume Sheren has never attended a MAiD death, so it’s hard to know where she is getting this idea from. But we’ll take our own experience, the experience of the 2266 MAiD practitioners across the country, as well as, the patient’s loved ones over anything Sheren has to say.

Beyond all that personal experience, Sheren’s claim is contradicted by studies examining lungs after MAiD, particularly lungs that were deemed healthy enough for transplantation. Those lungs were thoroughly assessed, including for pulmonary edema, and researchers did not find any evidence of the claims Sheren repeatedly makes. Nor had the lungs exploded—obviously.

This is a perfect example of knowing just enough to be dangerously wrong. Sheren really is a walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.3

Subscribe now

3. We Don’t Understand Propofol and Rocuronium?

Based on Sheren’s self-proclaimed expertise “we understand morphine and fentanyl a little bit better than we understand rocuronium and large doses of propofol…” (1:08:10)

If by “we", Sheren means her own understanding of rocuronium and propofol, then we agree. There seems to be very little she understands less than these medications. But we suspect she means the medical community in general, which begs the question: what expertise does she possess to make such an assertion? We would suggest none.

Rocuronium was developed in the 1980s and is now one of the most commonly administered neuromuscular blocking agents in modern anesthesia. It is routinely used to facilitate endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, and surgical procedures requiring skeletal muscle paralysis. It’s effects are well known.

Propofol, colloquially called “milk of amnesia”, was synthesized in the 1970s and has become one of the most widely used intravenous anesthetic agents in the world. It is used regularly for procedural sedation, general anesthesia, and ICU sedation. In palliative care settings, propofol may be used for continuous sedation for refractory symptoms and, in some circumstances, for severe nausea that has not responded to other treatments.

It is remarkable that Sheren states this as though there is inadequate knowledge about rocuronium and propofol. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, anesthesiologists, and critical care clinicians would disagree. Decades of routine use in anesthesia, critical care, emergency medicine, and palliative care have generated an enormous body of pharmacological and clinical knowledge of these medications. The suggestion that healthcare professionals somehow “understand” morphine and fentanyl but not rocuronium and propofol is simply not credible. These medications have been administered to millions of patients, and are administered every day by clinicians whose professional practice depends on understanding exactly how they work.

As a final thought, is Sheren suggesting that MAiD would be acceptable if morphine or fentanyl were used instead? She has hinted at that position before.4 If so, we have a surprise for her: morphine is already used in Canadian MAiD when a person chooses the oral route. Not that we'd expect Sheren to know that.

This highlights a recurring problem with Sheren’s commentary—her points are rarely thought through beyond their rhetorical value. If the objection is the medication, then the fact that morphine is already used in some MAiD protocols undermines the point she is trying to make. If the objection is MAiD itself, then the choice of medication should be irrelevant to her. Sheren seems to move between these positions without recognizing the contradiction.5

4. The “We Paralyze You First” Myth, Again

Sheren states, “We paralyze you first” (15:03) (sigh...) and later doubles down by claiming, “We just know they are paralyzed, can’t scream, and can’t move and ask for help. That’s what we do know. That is fact!” (20:33)

At this point, we genuinely do not know why Sheren continues to repeat this claim. She has been corrected numerous times, and she herself acknowledges that Canadian MAiD medication protocols are publicly available, and that she has read them. So, once again, for Sheren and anyone who keeps believing this claim: the paralytic is given LAST, after the person is in a coma.6

The standard Canadian intravenous MAiD protocol administers midazolam first, followed by propofol, and ending with rocuronium. Rocuronium is a neuromuscular blocking agent that causes paralysis of skeletal muscles, including the diaphragm and intercostal muscles which are required for breathing. By the time the rocuronium is administered, the person is already in a deep medically induced coma.

If Sheren still can’t get the order of the medications right—after being corrected numerous times both in private and public exchanges—what confidence can we have that she gets anything else right?

5. Talking while in a Coma?

Francis Foster asks “Are there people who have experienced it, who are able to talk for a little bit and then die? Sheren responds “no they can’t because they are under a paralytic”. (15:23)

To be clear, the person is not carrying on conversations during a Canadian MAiD provision. In almost every case, the person loses consciousness within thirty seconds of the medications being administered. For some, it might take sixty or ninety seconds and they may say a few final words in that time. In fact, these details are something providers specifically discuss with patients and families beforehand so that everyone understands that any final words or goodbyes should be said before the medications begin.

After the midazolam is administered, the person receives propofol, which rapidly induces a deep medical coma. At the doses used in MAiD, there is no scenario in which a person will remain awake, aware, and carrying on a conversation before the rocuronium is administered. We suspect the surgeons and anesthesiologists in the audience can attest to how few of their patients continue carrying on conversations during surgery, once propofol takes effect (that is, zero of them).

This exchange is a good example of a broader problem throughout the interview: confident assertions about medications and clinical practice made without a corresponding understanding of either.

Share

6. Approved for MAiD Because of a Genetic Marker?

When discussing advance requests in Quebec, Sheren states that if someone has the “genetic components” or “markers” for dementia, they can sign an advance request for MAiD. (10:23) This is completely incorrect. But note how confidently Sheren makes this statement while being 100% wrong.

Under Quebec law, an advance request for MAiD can only be made by a person who has already been formally diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness that will eventually lead to a loss of capacity to provide informed consent. A person cannot create an advance request simply because they have a genetic predisposition, a family history, or a concern that they may develop dementia in the future. Where Sheren got this idea of a “genetic marker” is a mystery.

Qualifying diagnoses may include conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, other forms of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and other serious neurodegenerative illnesses that are expected to result in incapacity.

7. Denmark…I Mean the Netherlands…No, Denmark. I’m Confused

Sheren then refers to a supposed assisted dying case from Denmark involving a woman who “made an advance request because she knew she would be developing dementia” before going on to tell a shocking story about her medically assisted death.

There is just one problem: assisted dying is illegal in Denmark!

We suspect Sheren may actually be referring to a widely discussed case from the Netherlands, possibly the 2016 dementia case that received media attention. However, Sheren identifies the case as occurring in Denmark, a country where medically assisted death is not legal.

Some may view this as a minor mistake, but accuracy matter. If you are presenting international examples as evidence that assisted dying laws are dangerous, it is important to at least identify the correct country and legal framework. Denmark and the Netherlands have very different laws, and confusing the two undermines the credibility of the story being told. And to be clear, we were not the only ones to notice this mistake. Multiple commenters from Denmark pointed out the error in the YouTube comments.

8. Double-Blind? Double Wrong

Sheren regularly invokes the principle of double effect when discussing palliative care and, once again, presents it here as an alternative to MAiD. Unfortunately, she cannot even seem to get the name of the concept right, repeatedly referring to it as the “double blind”.

According to Sheren:

Sheren also stated, in reference to the doctrine of double effect: “Is that a legal medical thing? No.” That is incorrect. The doctrine of double effect is not a fringe or obscure idea; it is a longstanding ethical principle that has been widely discussed in law, medicine, and bioethics for decades. It is an ethical principle that justifies performing a morally good action—such as relieving pain—even when it carries a foreseeable but unintended risk of a negative outcome, provided that negative outcome is not the intended goal.

In palliative care, the doctrine is most often invoked when medications are given to relieve severe pain or other distressing symptoms near the end of life. The purpose is to alleviate suffering, not to cause death, even if it has traditionally been argued that a possible side effect could be a shortening of life.

In the example Sheren is attempting to describe, a clinician might increase a patient’s opioid medication to better control pain, knowing that a higher dose could potentially suppress respiration and contribute to an earlier death. Under the doctrine of double effect, the ethical justification rests on the intent: relieving suffering, not hastening death.

Double-blind, on the other hand, is a research methodology in which neither the participants nor the researchers know who is receiving the treatment being studied and who is receiving the control. It has absolutely nothing to do with end-of-life care, ethics, or symptom management.

While Sheren appears to have a basic understanding of the concept she is attempting to reference, it is difficult to take her seriously when she repeatedly confuses two entirely different concepts (she called it “double blind” eight times). If she intends to continue advocating for the doctrine of double effect as an alternative to MAiD, the least she could do is get the terminology right, and learn how to describe the doctrine in more than the most rudimentary level. That said, we find her repeatedly confusing a centuries-old ethical principle with a modern research methodology to be quite entertaining.

9. Mandatory Organ Donation

According to Sheren, “They [referring to MAiD providers] weren’t allowed to bring up organ donation. Now it’s the first conversation they have....do you not think organ donation is a massive part of these conversations?” (22:04)

The conspiracy theory of mandatory or coerced organ donation after MAiD is a favourite of Sheren’s, and actually might be the most harmful piece of disinformation she shares. 7

Sheren seems to believe that organ donation is “skyrocketing” in Canada. In addition, she claims that a person cannot be an organ donor after an opioid overdose and suggests that this is why morphine is not used in MAiD provisions. At this point, Sheren’s conspiratorial thinking seems to be on full display. She appears to be suggesting that doctors and nurse practitioners are aggressively pursuing organs from people who choose MAiD, that they are selecting specific medications for MAiD that preserve the integrity of organs, while she suggests that people being coerced toward MAiD so their organs can be harvested.

Once again, Sheren is ignorant of the history of MAiD and organ donation.

Because no such process existed at the time, MAiD and transplant programs had to develop one from the ground up, navigating the complex ethical, legal, and practical challenges that accompanied it. The driving force behind organ donation after MAiD was patient choice, not a search for organs.

And the data fails to support Sheren’s narrative. In 2024, there were 16,499 MAiD provisions in Canada. Of those, only 62 people became organ donors after MAiD. That means only 0.4% of people who received MAiD went on to donate organs. To put that another way, more than 99.6% of people who received MAiD in 2024 did not become organ donors.9

Sheren goes on to suggest that morphine is not used for MAiD because a person could not donate their organs after an opioid overdose. This claim is difficult to reconcile with reality. Organ donation following opioid overdose deaths do occur. Sadly, as the opioid crisis has worsened across Canada and the United States, transplant programs have seen an increasing number of organ donors whose deaths were caused by overdose.

The suitability of organs for transplantation depends on age and numerous health factors, not whether opioids were involved in the person’s death. MAiD medication protocols were developed to provide a predictable death, not to maximize organ donation opportunities. It is hard to know where this claim originated, as there simply no way to misinterpret existing data to get to this belief. Some misinformation can be traced back to bad evidence or a misunderstanding of the facts—this one seems simply to have been made up.10

Despite what Sheren would like listeners to believe, the option of organ donation after MAiD is not evidence of an out-of-control system driven by organ procurement. It is evidence of a small number of Canadians making the personal decision to help others through organ donation after they had already independently chosen MAiD. Once again, Sheren insists her audience see a conspiracy where none exists.

Subscribe now

10. We Don’t Use Food Preservatives For MAiD

With regard to Ontario resident Kenneth Law, Sheren states that he “got a hold of MAiD drugs and put them on Amazon.” This is profoundly false. (33:15)

Law did not sell MAiD medications. He sold sodium nitrite, a food preservative that can be lethal when consumed in large quantities. Investigations suggest that he shipped more than 1,200 packages to individuals in at least 40 countries and that his activities may be connected to more than 100 deaths. He ultimately pleaded guilty to counselling or aiding 14 suicides in Ontario and admitted to operating websites that marketed suicide-related products to vulnerable individuals who later died.

At no point has there been evidence that Law obtained Canadian MAiD medications and sold them online. By claiming that Law “got ahold of MAiD drugs and sold them on Amazon,” Sheren is not merely getting the facts wrong, she is creating the false impression that MAiD medications are easily obtained and capable of being diverted into the public marketplace.

In reality, MAiD medications are prescription drugs subject to strict controls. Across Canada, there are established processes governing the prescribing, dispensing, transport, storage, administration, return, and disposal of MAiD medications. Providers are accountable for those medications, and unused drugs are returned to the pharmacy for disposal.

Despite Sheren’s insistence that MAiD medications are easy to obtain and frequently “go missing”, she fails to provide any evidence to back up these claims, because—get ready to be shocked—there is no evidence of this happening. This is just another conspiracy theory we can add to the pile.

11. MAiD Providers Are Not Above the Law

According to Sheren, “Doctors can’t be charged in Canada the way that the new law works.” (34:34) This is wrong!

MAiD became a legal healthcare option through amendments to the Criminal Code, but the law does not make MAiD providers immune from accountability. Rather, it creates a narrow exemption from criminal liability when MAiD is provided in accordance with the very specific MAiD legislation.

Physicians and nurse practitioners must comply with the eligibility criteria, safeguards, and other requirements in order to qualify for the Criminal Code exemption. If a healthcare provider were to provide MAiD to a person who did not meet the legal eligibility criteria, they could face professional discipline from their regulatory college as well as criminal investigation.

Thankfully, Canada has not seen a case in which a provider has been criminally convicted for improperly providing MAiD. But that is not evidence that accountability does not exist. It reflects the reality that providers understand the seriousness of their responsibilities and practice.

12. We Get Asked to Speak at These Events. Not the Other Way Around

In discussing Dying With Dignity (DWD), Sheren claims, “Dying with Dignity goes to the universities, the death doula programs...they even go to churches now. I leaked it last year. We caught them advertising MAiD to an RCMP veteran group, who are already struggling with PTSD.” (1:01:22) This is inaccurate and misleading!

This is another example of Sheren taking an informational event and transforming it into something sinister. As individuals who have spoken publicly about MAiD on numerous occasions, we can attest that churches, nursing programs, medical schools, residency programs, seniors’ organizations, and community groups frequently invite speakers to discuss MAiD. These organizations are not being targeted or solicited. They reach out themselves because their members want accurate information about a legal healthcare option that many Canadians will encounter either personally or professionally.

Contrary to Sheren’s apparent belief, some faith communities do not oppose all forms of MAiD, and want their congregants to have factual information about MAiD. We have been invited to speak at some of these churches ourselves.

Her claim regarding the RCMP Veterans Association is even more misleading.

Sheren portrays this as Dying With Dignity Canada and the RCMP Veterans Association promoting MAiD to vulnerable veterans with PTSD. Yet the email evidence she presents in her own Substack post does not align with her claim.

The event in question was organized by St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church, which invited MAiD provider Dr. Gord Gubitz as their expert speaker. An email from the RCMP Veterans Association (who did not organize the event) simply informed its members that the event was taking place and that some members might find it of interest.

That is it. Dying With Dignity Canada did not organize the event. The RCMP Veterans Association was not being targeted. Veterans were not being recruited into MAiD. A church hosted an educational event, and a RCMP veterans’ organization shared information about that event with its membership.

And yet, Sheren presents this as evidence of a covert campaign to steer vulnerable veterans toward assisted dying. Once again, Sheren asks her audience to see manipulation, coercion, and hidden motives where the evidence points to something else entirely—people seeking and sharing information about a legal healthcare option.

13. Dismissing a Patient’s Own Testimony

Sheren frequently points to highly publicized individual cases as evidence that MAiD is “targeting” certain vulnerable members of the population. One example she references is the case of a woman living with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) who chose MAiD. (1:04:58)

The problem is that the public narrative surrounding this case was often far more simplistic than the facts suggest. Much of the media coverage portrayed the woman as choosing MAiD because she could not obtain suitable housing, even presenting her as living in poverty.

As is so often the case in these cases, the reality was considerably more complex.

A submission to the Special Joint Committee on MAiD from Dr. Chantal Perrot discussed the case of a woman living with MCS who had sought better housing. Because the patient remains unnamed, we cannot be absolutely certain that this is the same individual Sheren is referring to. However, the overlap in the details is so substantial that it is highly likely they are the same woman.

According to Dr. Chantal Perrot:

Dr. Perrot goes on to explain that while the patient advocated for improved housing, she understood that housing was not a cure for her condition. The patient herself wrote:

None of this means that housing challenges were irrelevant. They clearly mattered to her. But it does refute the claim that she chose MAiD simply because she could not find adequate housing. According to both her physician and her own written words, she understood that better housing would not resolve the underlying medical condition nor the intolerable suffering that led her to request MAiD.

What is troubling is how often Sheren presents cases like this with such confidence in her understanding of them, despite having no apparent access to the complete clinical picture. It is safe to assume that Sheren was not involved in the assessments, did not have access to the patient’s complete medical records, and was not privy to the many conversations that occurred between the patient and her healthcare team. The people closest to the case—including the patient herself—described a far more different reality than the one Sheren presents.

Share

14. One Standard for Me, Another for Thee?

In discussing MAiD cases she believes were inappropriately found eligible, Sheren states: “We have people who, even though on the record they didn’t have a mental illness, but their secondary was, so that was legal… Okay, but they have an entire record of bipolar so why wasn’t that considered?” (1:05:24)

This criticism rests on an assumption that a history of mental illness was simply ignored by the MAiD assessors. That is not how MAiD assessments work. A history of mental illness, whether past or present, is always part of the medical history that assessors review and consider. The mere fact that someone has bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, or any other mental health diagnosis does not automatically mean they lack decision-making capacity,11 nor does it automatically make them ineligible for MAiD.

What is striking is that Sheren herself frequently states that she would qualify for MAiD, even going so far as to state:

At the same time, Sheren has spoken openly about living with PTSD and treatment-resistant depression. I wonder how she would feel if someone suggested her history of mental illness makes her automatically incapable of making informed medical decisions about her own care? If she would reject this idea, why should a history of mental illness be treated differently when discussing the decisions of others?

More fundamentally, how does Sheren know what was or was not considered during these assessments? Was she present? Did she review the complete medical records? Did she speak with the assessors? Without access to the full clinical picture, she is not identifying an error in the assessment process. She is speculating that an error must have occurred simply because she disagrees with the outcome.

15. Paid or Not Paid - Either Way Assessors Are Psychopaths

One of Sheren’s newer concerns is that physicians who assess and provide MAiD are paid for their work. In this interview she states:

This may come as a surprise to Sheren, but that is how medical expertise is compensated in Canada. Every physician consultation, whether in person or virtual, has an associated billing code. Office visits, specialist consultations, diagnostic procedures, surgeries, anesthetic services, and countless other medical services are all assigned specific billing codes and fees. Here in BC, the Ministry of Health publishes a publicly available fee schedule that spans more than 500 pages and contains thousands of billing items covering virtually every aspect of medical practice.

MAiD assessments are no different in this respect. According to the BC fee schedule, a MAiD assessment is billed at approximately $50 per 15-minute increment. The MAiD provider (prescriber) may bill up to 135 minutes for a Track 1 assessment and up to 270 minutes for a Track 2 assessment. The second assessor may bill up to 105 minutes for Track 1 and 150 minutes for Track 2.

MAiD assessments can take hours, days, even weeks to conduct. They involve reviewing all the important medical history; consultations with the patient’s family doctor or nurse practitioner; discussions with all relevant medical specialists, which can include doctors, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, etc.; conversations with the patient’s family and loved ones; and many more. If anything, Sheren’s $200-$300 remuneration estimate is grossly insufficient for the amount of work the MAiD assessors routinely do.

It is unclear if Sheren has an amount in mind that she would feel is appropriate to pay MAiD assessors and providers, or if she just thinks they should do this for free.12 If physicians performed MAiD assessments for free, it is difficult to imagine that she would suddenly support the practice. In fact, she will probably find more reason to refer to MAiD providers as “psychopaths” if they were unpaid.13 The real objection is not physician billing. The real objection is that physicians provide MAiD at all, so why not be honest and just say that!

16. A Backup Plan Is Not a Failed Plan

According to Sheren, providers bring two MAiD kits “because the first one doesn’t always work.” This is misleading and requires a nuanced conversation. (8:43)

Providers bring a second kit because good clinical practice requires preparation for the occurrence of rare complications. In nine years of supporting MAiD provisions, between the two of us we have only seen the second MAiD kit used once. That case involved a loss of IV access, not because the medications themselves “didn’t work.” If IV access is lost partway through a provision, and there isn’t a second IV already, it is best practice to insert a new IV and restart the medication process from the beginning to ensure the person gets the full effective dose.

A second kit may also be used in rare cases when death does not occur within the expected timeframe. But rare means rare. One study examining the technical aspects of MAiD found that a second medication kit was required for prolonged time to death in 16 out of 3,445 provisions. That is approximately 0.5% of the MAiD deaths included in the study. It is unclear from this paper what defines a clinically significant prolonged time to death. The longest death reported in the study was 127 minutes but that appears to be an extreme outlier. The authors do report median time to death as 9 mins, with most deaths occurring between 3 and 15 mins.

To be clear, prolonged time to death is something providers take seriously. Everyone’s body responds to and metabolizes medications a little differently, and there is an important clinical discussion to be had about how best to prevent, recognize, and manage prolonged provisions. In some cases, additional medications such as bupivacaine may be administered after rocuronium.

But Sheren’s framing gives viewers the impression that MAiD medications regularly fail and that the second kit is routinely needed because the first one “doesn’t work.” That is not what the evidence shows, and it is not what we have seen in practice.14

17. Now We Know Why She Doesn’t Understand the Limits of Palliative Care

“By definition, the second you come out of the womb, you’re palliative.” (1:14:02) What?

We already knew Sheren lacked a fulsome understanding of palliative care, but it’s nice to see it demonstrated so clearly. Her statement is nonsense and it’s not the first time we’ve heard Sheren say it. But it does help explain why she repeatedly misrepresents what palliative care can and cannot do. She clearly does understand even the most basic definition of the word.15

By Sheren’s logic, every newborn baby would be a palliative patient simply because they will one day die. This idea is absurd and is not how palliative care is defined, practiced, or understood by healthcare professionals (or really anyone).

Palliative care is a specialized approach to care focused on improving quality of life and relieving suffering for people living with chronic, progressive, or life-limiting illnesses. Even the dictionary defines palliate as relieving symptoms without curing the underlying disease.16

Modern palliative care is not limited to the final days or weeks of life. It is an approach to care when someone receives a life-limiting or life-altering diagnosis, and can be introduced alongside disease-modifying treatments, often benefiting people months or even years before death. A person receiving chemotherapy, dialysis, or treatments for a progressive neurological disease may receive palliative care support to help manage physical symptoms such as pain or shortness of breath.

This is not a disagreement about ethics, policy, or philosophy. This statement reveals a lack of familiarity with the basic meaning of palliative care. This is yet another example of Sheren confidently making a statement that collapses under even the most basic scrutiny.

Subscribe now

18. Not Every Death is a Failure of Care

When Sheren says, “Why have we accepted that we should be taking our family members and giving up, cause that’s what it is.” (1:00:42)

Notice whose perspective is missing from this statement: the patient’s.

Throughout this interview, the discussion is often framed almost entirely from the perspective of family members, healthcare providers, or society. The person actually living with the illness, decline, and intolerable suffering is reduced to an object being acted upon rather than an individual making decisions about their own life. This is a recurring pattern among many loud MAiD opponents. The patient’s stated wishes are rarely accepted at face value. If someone chooses MAiD, there must be another explanation. They were pressured. They were manipulated. They lacked adequate support. Someone whispered in their ear. Someone convinced them they were a burden. Someone gave up on them.

Sheren repeatedly suggests that people are choosing MAiD because healthcare providers are failing to offer alternatives such as pain management, symptom control, treatment, or other support. Yet she provides little evidence that this is happening on any widespread scale. In reality, the majority of Canadians who receive MAiD have already engaged with the healthcare system extensively, and many have received significant palliative care and other treatments before arriving at that decision.

What is particularly striking is that Sheren briefly appears willing to acknowledge that a capable person should be able to make this decision for themselves stating:

She was so close! If only she had let herself finish that thought. It would seem that Sheren believes that MAiD might actually be ok if we could only ensure it was really a free and autonomous choice. If only we had experts with decades of professional training and experience determining such things….

Anyway, according to Sheren, there is always some form of coercion occurring.

This creates an unfalsifiable argument. If a person chooses MAiD, their choice is evidence of coercion. If they insist it was their own decision, Sheren will say it was not and they are just unaware of the coercion. If their family supports them, they are abandoning their loved one. No answer can ever demonstrate genuine autonomy because autonomy has been ruled out from the start.

19. Targeting the Vulnerable or The Great Replacement Theory? Pick One.

Sheren frequently advances two mutually inconsistent narratives. She argues that MAiD is targeting society's most vulnerable people—those who are poor, unhoused, marginalized, or lacking adequate supports—while also claiming that MAiD is primarily used by the "white, wealthy, and worried."18

This is one of those moments where her argument collides with itself. Sheren starts by saying MAiD is used by the "white, wealthy, and worried," then quickly pivots back to the claim that impoverished people are being targeted, as though recognizing the tension she just created between the two narratives.

Which is it? If the typical MAiD recipient is affluent and well-resourced, then the claim that MAiD is principally targeting society’s most disadvantaged citizens becomes much harder to sustain. The contradiction suggests that the underlying objection is not who is accessing MAiD, but that people are accessing it at all. When one narrative becomes difficult to defend, another is substituted in its place.

The underlying claim never changes. Only the justification does. If the recipients are poor or marginalized, that proves manipulation. If they are wealthy, that proves undue influence.19 No matter who is accessing MAiD, the conclusion remains predetermined.

Many loud opponents of MAiD attempt to frame their objections as concerns about safeguards, demographics, or social vulnerability, yet seem unwilling to accept MAiD under any circumstances. The result is a constantly shifting set of arguments that often contradict one another while arriving at exactly the same position.

20. Hidden Data or All the Data?

“We have all the data. So we know if you are a highly educated individual. We know that if you’re white, we know if you’re black, we know if you’re ethnic, you’re homeless. We do know these things.” (1:04:04)

First, we don’t know all those things, but we do know quite a lot. More importantly, did Sheren just acknowledge that extensive data is collected about people who receive MAiD? That’s an interesting admission from someone who frequently portrays MAiD as secretive, unregulated, and lacking oversight.

The reality is that MAiD is one of the most closely monitored areas of healthcare in Canada. Health Canada collects and reports data on diagnoses, age, gender, ethnicity, source of suffering, palliative care involvement, and much more. The annual reports on MAiD are publicly available to anyone who wants to read them. And apparently Sheren is aware of them and may have even read a little bit.20

Final Thoughts

As expected, Sheren makes alarming claims that are unsupported by evidence, repeatedly presents rare or disputed cases as representative of the program as a whole, and relies on emotionally charged anecdotes in the hopes of manipulating public opinion.

Sheren, you are just a YouTuber yelling about a subject you know almost nothing about…and this interview has demonstrated that once again.

Making minor mistakes or misstating something is entirely normal. But Sheren does it was such frequency and confidence as to make us suspicious of everything she says, as you should be too. And Konstantin and Francis, we didn’t forget about you. If you want to be taken seriously, and not be known as facilitators of disinformation and conspiracy theories, you might want to rethink who you invite on your show. Or at the very least, have the integrity to ask challenging questions when a guest says something clearly out of touch with reality.

It’s been a busy few weeks here at MAiD in Canada. A number of life events have pulled our attention away from writing lately, including some exciting personal news we wanted to share.

Whenever we hold in-person MAiD education sessions, we are inevitably asked whether we are a couple. The answer is yes—and this past weekend we decided to make it extra official and got engaged.

Many people assume that MAiD in Canada is a formal organization with ample resources behind it. In reality, it’s just two nurses with a shared passion for evidence-based MAiD education and autonomous end-of-life decision-making who also happen to live and love together. And as it turns out, that makes those after-hours brainstorming sessions much easier to arrange. 😊

We do have several new posts in the works and hope to have them published over the next week or two. For today, however, we have something a little lighter to share: our June MAiD Quiz.

June MAiD Quiz

We had a lot of people tell us they enjoyed our first quiz in May, so we’ll aim to make it a monthly feature. Whether you got every question right last time or learned something new along the way, we hope you enjoy this month’s edition.

Thank you,

Paul and Kim

Share

Leave a comment

Dr. Tubman is an emergency physician and MAiD provider in Alberta. In this piece, she opens up about her journey to providing MAiD after losing her father. She also dives into how the Canadian media frames stories around MAiD, and shares her deep concerns regarding Alberta’s Bill 18.

She has graciously allowed us to share the first few paragraphs here, but we encourage you to read the full post on her Substack. Give her a like and subscribe while you’re there to help amplify these essential, positive MAiD stories!

Thank you, Dr. Tubman.

Read the rest of Dr. Tubman's post here

“Canada is about to kill its 100,000th citizen through Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) this spring. Not in a war. Not on a battlefield. Not in a medical accident. Killed by policy, by a government that wants you dead.”- Kelsi Sheren

Over the last six months, there has been an increasing number of articles, posts and commentary about Canada approaching the 100,000th person to receive Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). They are correct. But the purpose of repeatedly invoking that number is not to thoughtfully inform, it is to frighten.

The number is being used as a weapon — stripped of context, emptied of individual stories, and turned into a blunt instrument for a fear-based campaign.

Canada keeps detailed statistics on MAiD and releases an annual report at the end of each year. As of the end of 2024, 76,475 people had chosen MAiD. Based on the 16,499 MAiD provisions in 2024, and the slowing rate of increase — 6.9% from 2023 to 2024 — it would be safe to assume that approximately 17,500 people received MAiD in 2025. Full federal data for 2025 is not yet publicly available, but that estimate would place the cumulative total at approximately 93,975 by the end of 2025. You can see, then, how people have concluded that Canada will reach 100,000 MAiD deaths sometime in 2026.

According to Amy Hasbrouck, former president of the the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and disability rights advocate “The details – who was the 100,000th person killed, when did they die, what factors contributed to their decision, and what might have been done to prevent the euthanasia – will be obscured by that annual report, just as they have been shrouded by every other report released by Health Canada.”

Of course, there won’t be details about who is the “100,000th person”. That is not a cover-up. That is confidentiality. Apparently, in the rush to frame every MAiD death as something suspicious, even the basic privacy owed to patients and their loved ones becomes inconvenient.

As much as the loud opposition likes to shout about the 100,000 people who have chosen MAiD, the number itself is not evidence of wrongdoing, coercion, or scandal. It is a cumulative total. Nothing more. It represents 100,000 individuals who were assessed, found eligible under Canadian law, and who made an autonomous, deeply personal decision to end their intolerable suffering through MAiD.

Opponents want that number to feel shocking because shock is easier than context. But a large number, repeated dramatically, is not an argument. It does not tell us that people were coerced and it does not tell us that safeguards failed. It tells us that, over the last ten years, Canadians facing incurable illness, disease or disability and intolerable multi-faceted suffering decided that MAiD was the right choice for them.

But I am not writing this post to debate statistics.

I am writing it because I am tired of hearing individuals and organizations utilize this number as though it represents 100,000 victims of a predatory system. I am frustrated at hearing people imply that those who chose MAiD are weak, or were manipulated and coerced into dying.

According to Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the EPC “we called [it] MAiD to make us feel better about poisoning people to death”. Anti-choice ideologues routinely describe people as being “killed” or “poisoned to death.” Medical professionals who support MAiD are called “serial killers.” And those who support the right to choose MAiD are cast as villains, and referred to as part of the so-called “death lobby.”

This language is not accidental. It is meant to strip patients of agency, turn clinicians into monsters, and make anyone who supports choice appear morally suspect.

Subscribe now

My frustration with this issue is not simply because I am a nurse who supports access to MAiD, or because Paul and I run a platform focused on educating people about MAiD and debunking MAiD misinformation.

It is personal. Five years ago today, I said my final goodbye to my grandma. It was the last time I would hug her, hold her hand, or hear her say I love you. She was one of the 10,064 Canadians who chose MAiD in 2021.

But she was not a victim. She was not denied resources. She was not pressured into dying by the healthcare system or her family.

Implying she was a casualty of the system is offensive to the very core of who she was: a strong woman who was perfectly capable of making her own decisions about her life and death.

For those who have joined us over the last year and may not have read my story about my grandma and my experience, I would encourage you to read my Substack post. In addition, you can listen to Disrupting Death episode 33 where I talk about it in detail.

My grandma was 90 years old, living in her own home, supported by family, friends, and neighbours. She also had a supportive care team that respected her healthcare wishes.

She chose MAiD not only because her physical health was declining, but because her overall quality of life was worsening too. My grandma was as independent as they come. It was a battle of wills every time I tried to help her with vacuuming, washing dishes, or pretty much anything around her home. I can see my mom nodding her head in agreement as she reads this. She managed her own affairs right up to the very end, getting help mainly with the house and yard. She drove her car until her 90th birthday, just two months before her death. She took immense pride in being able to still manage most of her household tasks. She grew up in the great depression and knew what hard-work and self-sufficiency could accomplish. And she made sure little got in her way when it came to her independence.

And when it came to the end of her life, she was at peace with her decision from the day she was found eligible for MAiD. She shared her eligibility with me with a sense of calm and control, seeming to find peace knowing she had MAiD as an option if her health deteriorated further.

Share

Amy Hasbrouck has said that “Every person who requests and receives euthanasia has a physical or mental limitation which, in combination with barriers in the environment…results in a disability, (as defined by the United Nations) whether or not they self-identify as disabled” Amy Hasbrouck on Jan 20. 2026 and reposted on Jan 22 by the EPC

This involuntary categorical expansion — the idea that every single person who chooses MAiD must, by definition, be experiencing barriers so profound that they should be considered disabled regardless of how they see themselves — ignores the fact that people have the right to self-identification.

There is a deep irony in watching someone who advocates so strongly for disability rights to decide, on behalf of others, whether they should identify as disabled, while disregarding how those individuals understand themselves and their own lives. I suspect Hasbrouck would object — quite rightly — if other people dismissed her own understanding of her lived experience and insisted on defining it for her instead.

But whether or not my grandma was living with a disability, as defined by Hasbrouck or the United Nations, is not my main issue. The real insult is the suggestion that because my grandma meets a particular definition, she must therefore belong to a vulnerable group. According to some disability rights advocates, her inclusion in this group means her decision about MAiD cannot be trusted as truly voluntary, but must instead be presumed to be shaped by coercion.

With regard to resources and for those who like to suggest that high-quality palliative care is always the magic fix for MAiD requests, that was definitely not true in my grandma’s case. Not only did she have a supportive physician, she had a granddaughter with more than 10 years of experience in palliative care. I offered to take leave from work and come stay with her, to support her through to the end of her life. She would not agree to me staying with her--she valued her independence too much--but I managed to sneak in as many visits as I could, especially in her final six months.

With each visit, I put on my palliative care hat as we talked about her life adventures, her suffering, and how we could all help support her. We had a lot of time together, just the two of us, and I am thankful for all the memories, and meaningful conversations.

In her final months she told me, “the days are getting long,” echoing something my grandpa had said in his final weeks seven years earlier. While cuddling our then 6 month old golden retriever and watching old western films he said to me, “I feel like I am biding time.”

This is what accepting the end of life can sound like.

And these conversations matter. They are valuable for healthcare teams, but they are especially valuable for loved ones. They remind us that not every expression of readiness for death is despair. Sometimes it is clarity. Often it is a person, after a long and wonderful life, telling the people who love them that they know where they are, what they are facing, and what they want for the end.

Subscribe now

But the opposition will continue to tell us otherwise. They tell us that our loved ones were “giving up,” that they were treated as burdensome, or made to feel their lives were no longer worth living. They insist that MAiD is always chosen because of inadequate access to resources. According to the EPC, “real care means reminding someone their life still has value — even in the hardest moments.”

I can only imagine my grandma’s reaction if someone had tried to tell her that her situation “still held value” and that she should simply keep going because someone she didn’t know believes life is always worth living, regardless of the suffering. Honestly, it makes me laugh picturing her response. She was fiercely independent, stubborn in the best possible way, and entirely capable of deciding for herself what quality of life meant to her.

How dare anyone reduce every person who chooses MAiD to someone who is simply “giving up”? It is dehumanizing and disrespectful.

My grandma was not a victim. She did not choose MAiD because the government, the healthcare system, or her family convinced her she was a burden. I would have tended to her every need for as long as it took if she had let me. But that is not what she wanted. She chose MAiD because she understood her circumstances, knew what mattered most to her as a person, and wanted control over how her story ended.

That was her decision to make — not the churches, not a politician’s, not mine, and certainly not some stranger online who thinks everyone else’s life belongs to their ideology.

I will not let my lived experience, or my grandma’s memory, be distorted by the loudest, most judgmental, and sometimes most callous voices in this debate. And I hope others with lived experience will do the same.

Tell your story. Push back. Refuse to let fear-mongering stand unchallenged. Because every time one of us tells the truth about a loved one’s MAiD death and it doesn’t match their claims, it weakens the narrative they are trying so hard to impose on everyone else.

My Grandma was a resilient and fiercely independent woman. They will never take that away from her.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

For this edition, we have everything from claims that skin may be used to make wallets after MAiD, to claims that MAiD providers are prescribing experimental drug compounds for assisted dying.

As always, you can find recent MAiD misinformation on our website, linked below. If you come across anything we have not covered, please email us or fill in the form on the main page of our website.

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-skin-might-be-used-to-make-wallets-after-maid

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/dr-zivot-is-back-spreading-his-ignorance

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/false-claim-maid-providers-regularly-prescribe-experimental-drug-compounds-at-lethal-doses

https://www.maidincanada2016.ca/recent-maid-misinformation/the-liberals-proposed-assisted-suicide-for-people-suffering-from-terminal-illness

Share

We generally try to stay calm and measured when responding to misinformation about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). We like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say something untrue. We believe these conversations matter, and because they matter, we believe they should be approached carefully, honestly, and in good faith, even when there is profound disagreement.

Our issue is not when people oppose MAiD. People are entitled to their beliefs. They have the right to believe MAiD is wrong, to campaign against it, to advocate against it, and to try to persuade others of their position. We would defend that right. Our issue is with dishonesty — especially when it is used to smear people or groups advocating for patient choice.

One of the increasingly unavoidable realizations we have had is that some of the loudest and most influential opponents of MAiD appear willing to abandon intellectual honesty, truth, fairness, and even basic decency the moment those attributes become inconvenient to their broader ideological project of opposing MAiD.

A recent post published on the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) blog is one of the clearest examples we have seen in quite some time.

The statement and the post

On May 5th, 2026, Helen Long, CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada, appeared before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. This committee was examining healthcare readiness for MAiD where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition (MI-SUMC). During those hearings, Senator Rosemary Moodie raised an obvious and uncomfortable issue: the total absence of testimony from people who were themselves directly affected by the exclusion being debated.

Transcript

Video

In response, Helen Long read part of a statement written by Claire Brosseau, a woman living with severe and debilitating mental illness who had sought the opportunity to testify before the committee herself. Claire’s point was straightforward and difficult to refute: anti-MAiD advocates, activists, family, and commentators were being invited to discuss the lives and autonomy of people like her, while people like her were entirely excluded from the conversation itself.

At one point in the statement, Claire wrote:

“We so often hear the expression ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ and yet they have refused to hear from any people who are harmed from the exclusion…”

Two days later the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) blog cross-posted an article by former EPC president Amy Hasbrouck titled “Nothing About Us, Without Us.” The article was framed as a criticism of Helen Long supposedly appropriating the disability rights slogan “Nothing About Us Without Us” for herself and for Dying With Dignity Canada.

The opening framing stated:

“Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement…”

And from there the article spiraled into a sustained character attack on Helen Long.

Not a substantive critique of Claire Brosseau’s exclusion from the committee. Not an argument about whether people directly affected by these policies should be heard. Not even a serious engagement with the actual issue being raised.

Instead, the article criticized Helen Long’s motives, ethics, empathy, feminism, understanding of ableism, and moral character.

Leave a comment

Amy Hasbrouck suggested that Helen Long did not genuinely care about disabled people. She accused her of not understanding the “first thing” about ableism. She implied that Helen Long lacked the standing or lived experience necessary to meaningfully speak about psychiatric illness or trauma.

At one point, Amy Hasbrouck writes that, “as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence,” Helen Long should be capable of making “a solidarity connection in a more genuine way than simply claiming it.”

This is one of the more offensive moments in the article, because it has almost nothing to do with the issue actually being discussed. Instead, it functions as a kind of moral and ideological purity test, implicitly suggesting that Helen Long’s support for MAiD disqualifies her from genuinely understanding solidarity, oppression, or violence against women. The implication is not merely that Helen Long is wrong, but that she is somehow failing as a woman by holding the position she does.

And again, all of this is being directed at someone who was simply reading another woman’s statement into the parliamentary record.

The article then escalated even further, implying that support for MAiD reflects a belief that disabled people are “better off dead,” tying that accusation not only to MAiD supporters and Dying With Dignity Canada generally, but implicitly to Helen Long herself.1 By the end, the rhetoric had deteriorated into accusations that Helen Long’s “personal, pecuniary and political interests” depended on her “not understanding” these issues, followed by the sneering closing line:

“Please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.”

What makes that closing line especially revealing is that these were Claire Brosseau’s words, not Helen Long’s. By saying “get our words out of your (nasty) mouth,” Amy Hasbrouck effectively excludes Claire from the very “us” she claims to defend. In Hasbrouck’s version of “Nothing About Us Without Us,” Claire only counts as part of the “us” when her words support Hasbrouck’s argument.2

But rather than acknowledge that uncomfortable reality, Hasbrouck redirects the attack back onto Helen Long. The problem is no longer Claire’s exclusion from a parliamentary process debating decisions that directly affect people like her. The problem becomes Helen Long’s supposed appropriation of words that, in reality, were never hers to begin with.

That is the central dishonesty of the piece. The falsehood is not that Helen Long physically said the words. She did. The falsehood is the framing: that Long invoked them for herself or for Dying With Dignity Canada, when in fact she was reading Claire Brosseau’s words about Claire’s own exclusion from the parliamentary process.

Once you understand that context, the article becomes genuinely difficult to read in good faith. Claire’s criticism disappears entirely, replaced by increasingly bitter attacks on the person who read her words aloud. Rather than engage with the uncomfortable reality that Claire’s use of “Nothing About Us Without Us” was entirely appropriate, Amy Hasbrouck transformed the situation into an opportunity for character assassination.

Share

The “sorry, not sorry” correction

What was especially revealing is what happened after the error was pointed out.

When we first saw the article, we immediately recognized the inaccuracies in this claim as we had watched the testimonies of both Helen Long and EPC Executive Director Alex Schadenberg. Schadenberg was sitting directly beside Helen Long during the hearing. To be fair, it is entirely possible that, during a busy parliamentary hearing in which he himself was testifying, he initially misunderstood or missed the context of what Helen Long was reading.3

That would have been understandable. But that explanation ceased to be credible the moment the issue was brought directly to their attention.

We emailed the EPC and explained that Helen Long had been reading Claire Brosseau’s statement, not speaking for herself. We also raised the issue publicly in the comments section of the EPC blog post itself, writing:

“It’s interesting that you’ve left out that Helen Long did not say this about herself. She was reading a statement from Claire Brosseau…”

To Schadenberg’s credit, he approved the comment. But he then replied:

“Amy wrote the article and stated that her comment was a rumour, therefore Amy wanted the article to stand as it was written.”

At that point, the EPC and Amy Hasbrouck had been directly informed that the framing underpinning the article was entirely false. They acknowledged that Helen Long had been reading Claire Brosseau’s words. They knew the slogan had not been invoked by Helen Long for herself or for Dying With Dignity Canada. They knew the vilification throughout the article were built on a fundamentally false characterization of what had actually happened.

And they chose to leave it standing anyway!

In fact, the current version of the article now includes a brief clarification acknowledging that Helen Long was “reading a text by Claire Brosseau.” That clarification was not present in the original version of the article. It appears to have been inserted later, after the issue had already been raised both publicly and privately.

An honest mistake is one thing. Quietly adding context later while continuing to circulate an attack on Helen Long’s motives, ethics, and understanding of disabilities or trauma is something entirely different. At that point, the issue is no longer a misunderstanding. It is a choice: to continue vilifying a person under false pretenses because the EPC believes they benefit from portraying supporters of MAiD as morally monstrous.

This is about more than one article

What we see here is part of a broader pattern within the loud anti-MAiD movement: when the underlying argument becomes less persuasive to the public, the language becomes more inflammatory, the framing becomes more manipulative, and the attacks become more personal.

We have written before about the deliberate attempt to control the MAiD debate by controlling the language used to describe it. Terms like “medical homicide,” “state-sanctioned death,” and “poison” are not neutral. They are chosen because they evoke fear, disgust, and moral panic. The goal is not clarity. The goal is emotional conditioning.

Hasbrouck’s post follows the same pattern. Helen Long is not merely portrayed as wrong.4 She is portrayed as insincere, morally compromised, ignorant of oppression, indifferent to disabled people, and unworthy of solidarity herself.

This is the core tension many opponents of MAiD cannot honestly confront. Amy Hasbrouck, Alex Schadenberg, Meghan Schrader and other anti-MAiD absolutists begin from a fixed premise: people living with disabilities, and people whose suffering arises from mental illness, should never be permitted to choose MAiD. There is no circumstance, no assessment process, no safeguard, no evidence of capacity, and no expression of autonomous choice that would cause them to move from that position. They are not arguing for safer MAiD. They are arguing for no MAiD.

But that position runs directly into another principle they also claim to defend: that people living with disabilities and people living with mental illness are full moral agents, capable of directing their own care, making serious decisions about their own lives, and speaking for themselves. That is the conflict they do not want to engage with. Because if they engage with it honestly, they have to acknowledge that this is not simply discourse about “protecting the vulnerable.” It is a debate about whether some people are being denied autonomy precisely because of the diagnosis, disability, or suffering they live with.

Rather than sit with that tension, they collapse the issue into a much simpler story: MAiD is killing, supporters of MAiD are dangerous, and anyone who argues for choice is ignorant, corrupt, and complicit in harm. That is why, when confronted with people like Claire Brosseau — someone directly affected by the exclusion and willing to speak for themselves — the response is not careful engagement. It is dismissal: someone like Claire cannot possibly be a true advocate for people with mental illness.5

And when Claire’s words were entered into the parliamentary record, the response is not to address her concerns, but to criticize the reader’s character for speaking them.

When your arguments are failing

That is not what confidence looks like. That is what happens when ideologues cannot defend the full implications of their positions.

People confident in the strength of their arguments do not need to rely on this kind of (nasty) rhetoric. They do not need to preserve false framings after they have been corrected. They do not need to substitute character assassination for substance.

If anything, this should be understood for what it is: intellectual, moral, and argumentative weakness dressed up as conviction. It is the rhetoric of a movement that knows its arguments are losing persuasive power outside its own insular, ideological circles.

Unfortunately, that does not make it harmless. We still have to take unserious people seriously, because their mis- and disinformation continues to shape public perception, political discourse, and the experiences of vulnerable people trying to understand an already emotionally charged issue.

Subscribe now

People advocating for patient choice are expected to be endlessly measured, careful, nuanced, and fair. We are expected to correct our mistakes immediately, acknowledge complexity, and engage respectfully with opposing viewpoints. And we should.

But it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that some of the loudest voices on the other side simply do not hold themselves to the same standards. Increasingly, it appears there are very few boundaries they are unwilling to cross if crossing them helps advance their political and ideological campaign against MAiD.

Amy Hasbrouck’s article was built on a false premise, and Alex Schadenberg published and defended it. Helen Long did not invoke “Nothing About Us Without Us” for herself. She read Claire Brosseau’s words about Claire’s own exclusion from a parliamentary process discussing decisions that will have a profound effect on people like her.

Hasbrouck and Schadenberg were informed of that fact.

They kept the articles up anyway.

And that tells us everything we need to know about the EPC.

But this article is not primarily about Bill 18. It is about the public survey Alberta conducted in 2024 — and the results the government has still not released publicly.

Bill 18 is moving forward in an environment where the UCP appears to be ignoring, and perhaps even suppressing, the explicit feedback it received from over 23,000 Albertans with regard to MAiD.

Background

In late 2024, the Government of Alberta held a public survey asking Albertans for their views on MAiD eligibility, safeguards, and related issues. As of today, the results of that survey have not been released publicly.

It appears the UCP conducted the survey, did not like the responses it received, and then chose not to share them. Bill 18 only strengthens that impression, as it includes provisions that Albertans explicitly rejected in the 2024 survey.

We’ve added graphs for each question in the sections below and included the survey results we received through a freedom of information request.

Alberta 2024 Maid Survey Results

1.05MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

But before we get to the results themselves, there are a few important details worth discussing.

What Was Withheld

Alberta did provide us with the survey results, including over 900 pages of written responses. What they did not provide were the records showing whether, when, or how the government decided whether to release the results publicly.

Those pages were heavily redacted or withheld, mainly under sections 29(1)(a) and 29(1)(b) of Alberta’s Access to Information Act, which cover internal advice, recommendations, analysis, policy options, consultations, and deliberations involving officials. Some pages were also withheld under section 27, which applies to Cabinet or Treasury Board records.

We are challenging those redactions.

The question we asked was not what private advice the government received about MAiD policy. It was much simpler than that:

Why did the government ask Albertans for their views, receive the results, and then choose not to release them publicly?

We will update readers if we learn more about the government’s reasoning and the outcome of that challenge.

Survey Design

Before looking at the actual responses, it is worth pausing briefly on the design of the survey itself. Survey results are shaped not only by what people believe, but also by how questions are worded, framed, and ordered.

We have experience designing and implementing academic surveys, where neutrality is one of the most important principles. The goal is to give respondents a fair opportunity to express what they actually believe, without steering them toward a particular answer.

One of the most obvious design problems appears near the end of Alberta’s survey, where respondents are finally asked to rate their agreement with the statement:

“I support MAiD as an end-of-life healthcare option.”

On its own, this is a reasonable and important question. The problem is its placement.

Rather than asking this broad, baseline question at the beginning, the survey places it after a series of questions about mental illness, additional safeguards, government oversight, family challenges to MAiD decisions, and family access to MAiD-related health records.

By that point, respondents have already been exposed to questions that repeatedly raise concerns about the current system. Several of those questions appear to presuppose that existing safeguards may be inadequate, that family members may need greater power to challenge MAiD decisions, or that mental illness creates special risks in MAiD assessments.

The placement of this question is significant.

If the goal was to understand Albertans’ general views on MAiD, respondents should have been asked whether they support MAiD as an end-of-life healthcare option before being presented with more specific, concern-framed questions.

As designed, the final support question is unlikely to reflect respondents’ baseline view of MAiD. Instead, it may reflect their view after being primed by a survey framed heavily around risk and possible system failure.

The Survey Results

Sources of Information and Health Care Workers

Question 7

“I have learned about MAiD in the following ways.”

Question 8

“The health care worker gave me information about MAiD in a way I could understand.”

The first result we want to highlight is that almost 35% of respondents said they learned about MAiD from a health care worker. Of those respondents, more than 78% agreed that:

“The health care worker gave me information about MAiD in a way I could understand.”

Only 3.3% disagreed.

This is important because Bill 18 implicitly suggests that health care workers cannot be trusted to have these conversations using their own professional judgment. But Albertans appear to feel differently.

Health care workers — including doctors, nurses, social workers, and others — are among the most trusted professionals in our society. This result reflects that reality.

The survey did ask respondents to “Please explain your answer in less than 250 words,” but those written responses were completely redacted. Those comments would have added useful context to this part of the report.

News and Social Media

One of the more interesting findings concerns where Albertans are getting their information about MAiD.

According to the survey, 72.59% of respondents reported learning about MAiD from news media, including television and newspapers. Another 32.59% reported learning about MAiD from social media, including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X.

We have discussed this before, but both news media and social media can be unreliable sources of information about MAiD.

News media is generally more reliable than social media, but even news outlets that are broadly supportive of MAiD sometimes make significant factual errors about basic MAiD information. Outlets that oppose MAiD often go further, combining factual errors with alarmist and extreme language. If respondents included “news” sources such as The Western Standard in this category, then many were almost certainly not receiving accurate information.

Social media is, well, social media. It is often, as many of you know, a cesspool of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

As a general rule, nobody should be relying solely on social media as their primary source of MAiD information. There are reliable sources of MAiD information on social media — including Dying With Dignity Canada, MAiDHouse, CAMAP (and us of course)— but those sources are overseen by individuals with the credentials, experience, and evidence to support the information they provide.

Where people get their information shapes what they believe. And what they believe shapes how they answer questions such as:

“The Government of Alberta should create more safeguards to provide oversight to MAiD decisions in Alberta.”

Fortunately, many people are also getting MAiD information from other sources, including education programs and health care workers — at least until Bill 18 is implemented.

But given how many respondents reported learning about MAiD from news and social media, it is not surprising that misinformation appeared repeatedly in the written responses.

Misinformation in Written Responses

The survey comments contained repeated examples of extreme language, conspiracy theories, and familiar misinformation about MAiD.

For example:

• “Nazi,” “Hitler,” “eugenics,” or “genocide” appeared 130 times.

• “Drowning” or “fluid” filling the lungs appeared 78 times.

• “Paralyzed” or “torture” appeared 77 times.

• “Depopulation” appeared 12 times.

• “Murder” appeared 1,007 times. “Homicide” appeared another 13 times.

• MAiD providers were called “killers” 20 times.

• The word “kill” appeared 2,140 times.

• “Evil” appeared 178 times.

• “Agenda” appeared 39 times.

• There were 661 references to “coercion” or people being “pushed” toward MAiD.

• References to saving money appeared more than 300 times.

• The World Economic Forum appeared 14 times.

• Organ harvesting was referenced 20 times.

• “Slippery slope” appeared 350 times.

• The claim that there are “no safeguards” appeared 16 times.

These are not large numbers in absolute terms, particularly in a sample of more than 23,000 respondents. But they are still meaningful.

To the extent that some Albertans oppose MAiD, these comments suggest that a not-insignificant portion of that opposition relies on misinformation, conspiracy theories, or highly distorted claims about how MAiD actually works.

Share

Additional Safeguards

Question 10

“The Government of Alberta should create more safeguards to provide oversight to MAiD decisions in Alberta.”

For simplicity, we have grouped “agree” and “strongly agree” together, and done the same for “disagree” and “strongly disagree.” The tables below each section provide the full breakdown.

The results of this question (and others) were previously reported by the Edmonton Journal: 38.3% agreed that the government should create more safeguards, while 47.2% disagreed.

That means close to a majority of Albertans said there should not be additional safeguards. Yet additional safeguards are exactly what the UCP has pushed forward through Bill 18.

You will see this pattern throughout the survey results: Albertans said one thing, and the UCP proceeded to do something else.

Question 10 also provides a useful example of the broader wording problems found throughout the survey. The question asks respondents whether:

“The Government of Alberta should create more safeguards to provide oversight to MAiD decisions in Alberta.”

On its face, that may sound straightforward. But the wording combines several distinct concepts in a way that makes the question difficult to interpret clearly.

In MAiD policy and practice, “safeguards” and “oversight” are not the same thing.

Safeguards generally refer to eligibility criteria, assessment requirements, waiting periods, and procedural protections that must be followed before MAiD can proceed. Oversight, by contrast, usually refers to retrospective review, monitoring, auditing, or regulatory examination of MAiD practice and individual cases.

By combining these concepts into a single phrase — “more safeguards to provide oversight” — the question becomes ambiguous. It is unclear whether respondents were being asked about stricter eligibility rules, more government monitoring, additional documentation requirements, expanded review mechanisms, or all of these at once.

The question also contains a subtle presupposition: that Alberta’s current safeguards or oversight mechanisms are insufficient and that “more” are needed.

That framing can influence responses because terms such as “safeguards” and “oversight” carry inherently positive and protective connotations. Survey research has long shown that wording framed around safety, protection, or accountability tends to produce higher agreement rates because opposing such measures can feel unreasonable or socially undesirable. After all, what kind of monster does not want to protect people?

Whatever version of “safeguards” or “oversight” the UCP was asking about, Albertans largely rejected the proposal.

Sample Respondent Comments

MAiD and Mental Illness

Question 12

“People with mental illness as their only medical condition should NOT be able to apply for MAiD.”

The response to this question is not surprising.

A total of 40.7% of respondents agreed that people with a mental illness as their only medical condition should not be able to apply for MAiD. Meanwhile, 45.1% disagreed with that statement.

While the gap is not as wide as it was for the previous question, a plurality of respondents still disagreed with the UCP’s decision to enact a complete ban on MAiD for mental illness.

We would go further and suggest that if more people had a full and accurate understanding of what would actually be required for someone to be approved for MAiD where mental illness is the sole underlying condition, more people would likely oppose Alberta’s attempt to ban it outright.

These numbers may accurately reflect what some people currently believe about MAiD for mental illness. But they do not necessarily reflect what the law requires, or what people might believe if those requirements were clearly understood.

Two misconceptions appear again and again in discussions about MAiD for mental illness:

1. That someone could receive MAiD for mental illness without years — if not decades — of treatment and attempts to relieve their suffering.

2. That someone whose mental illness prevents them from giving informed consent could still be approved for MAiD.

Neither of these are true.

It is true that some mental illnesses can affect decision-making capacity some of the time. But in our experience, people tend to greatly overestimate how often, and how severely, mental illness affects capacity. Yet these claims are repeatedly promoted and amplified by people such as Danielle Smith, Tamara Jansen, Michael Cooper, and Andrew Lawton. As we have shown in our piece on Tamara Jansen specifically, these arguments often rely on fictional scenarios, emotional manipulation, and fear rather than an honest description of what MAiD for mental illness would actually require in practice.

Both misconceptions show up in the respondent comments.

Two of the examples below are not merely expressions of opposition to MAiD for mental illness. They illustrate how often that opposition appears to rest on misunderstandings about eligibility, treatment history, and decision-making capacity.

Sample Respondent Comments

Question 14

“Patients with both physical and mental illness need additional safeguards as mental illness may impact decision making for those who requested MAiD for a terminal physical illness.”

For this question, 43.3% of respondents agreed that additional safeguards are needed when a person has a mental illness in addition to a terminal physical illness. Almost exactly the same percentage — 43.9% — disagreed.

What this question reflects — along with statements from the UCP and many of the most common arguments against MAiD for mental illness — is a focus on decision-making capacity that often misunderstands how capacity actually works. In our view, the claim that people with mental illness are inherently incapable of making an informed MAiD request is one of the weakest arguments against MAiD for mental illness.

People with serious and incurable physical illnesses who also have serious mental illnesses can, and do, make capable and informed decisions about MAiD. That does not appear to be especially controversial. The controversy seems to emerge only when the physical illness is removed from the equation, even though that does not automatically make the person less capable of making decisions. If anything, it may make the assessment more focused, not less. Yet somehow, the absence of a physical illness is treated as though it removes the person’s ability to make a capable, informed request.

What is interesting about this question is not the response itself, but what the UCP chose to do with it. Bill 18 does not appear to include any additional safeguards for cases where a person has both a terminal physical illness and a mental illness. That omission is notable. If the UCP truly believes that mental illness makes people so vulnerable, or so impaired in their decision-making, that they need to be protected from themselves, then one would expect that concern to apply here as well. A person with advanced cancer and a history of depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar disorder, or another mental illness would presumably still have the same vulnerability the UCP claims to be worried about. Yet Bill 18 does not seem to treat those cases as requiring the same special protection.

Leave a comment

Family Involvement

These questions are the ones where respondent’s opinions diverged most from the provisions in Bill 18.

Question 16

“Family members should be able to challenge a MAiD decision (i.e. whether a person is approved or denied).”

A total of 35.1% of respondents agreed that family should be able to challenge a MAiD decision. Meanwhile, 55.2% disagreed.

Question 18

“Family members should be able to access healthcare records related to MAiD for the purpose of challenging MAiD decisions.”

A total of 31.1% of respondents agreed that family should be able to challenge a MAiD decision. Meanwhile, 58.2% disagreed.

These are, again, poorly constructed questions.

Question 16 combines two very different scenarios into a single question: whether family members should be able to challenge a MAiD approval, and whether they should be able to challenge a MAiD denial. Those are not the same issue, and many respondents appeared to interpret the question in very different ways.

Several written comments supported a family’s ability to challenge a denial of MAiD if they believed their loved one’s suffering had not been adequately considered, or if they felt the assessment process had been unfair or incomplete. But some of those same respondents also stated that family members should not be able to interfere when a capable person had already been approved for MAiD.

A respondent could answer “yes” to this question while supporting the exact opposite policy position from another respondent who also answered “yes.” One person may believe families should be able to advocate for access to MAiD, while another believes families should be able to block it. Those are fundamentally different views, yet the survey collapses them into the same response category.

That makes the results difficult to interpret in any meaningful way.

At the same time, many comments did clearly support the idea that family members should be able to challenge approved MAiD decisions. A recurring theme in those responses was distrust of the healthcare system and the belief that family members “know best.” Many respondents questioned how healthcare professionals could properly assess a person they had only recently met, while family members who had known the individual for years could supposedly better understand their true wishes.

What was particularly striking, however, was how many comments appeared to show little understanding of medical confidentiality or privacy rights.

This became even more apparent in Question 18, which asked whether family members should have access to healthcare records related to MAiD decisions. Across many comments, there appeared to be a broad assumption that family members should have unrestricted access to a capable adult’s medical records in order to determine whether the MAiD process had been handled “properly,” and to gather the information necessary to challenge the decision if they disagreed with it.

That is a profoundly concerning belief.

The underlying assumption seemed to be that family members possess an inherent right to access private medical information and intervene in medical decision-making, even where the patient had been assessed as fully capable of making their own healthcare decisions. One wonders how far that belief extends.

We are not going to spend much time analyzing the numerical responses to these questions because, in many ways, the numbers themselves are less important than what the questions reveal. For our purposes, it is enough to note that respondents showed strong resistance to both ideas: allowing family members to challenge MAiD decisions, and allowing them to access private medical records in order to do so.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality and privacy are fundamental rights in Canada (even in Alberta). Competent adults have the right to make deeply personal healthcare decisions — including decisions about MAiD — without forfeiting their medical privacy simply because family members disagree.

In our opinion, if there is one aspect of Bill 18 that is especially vulnerable to a legal challenge, it is the legislation’s mandatory involvement of family members regardless of the patient’s wishes or consent. The idea that the government can override a capable adult’s right to confidentiality and privacy simply because they have chosen MAiD is extraordinarily difficult to justify in a free and democratic society.

Sample Respondent Comments

Previous Questions’ Framing Showing Up?

Another recurring theme in the comments was the belief that family members must have the ability to challenge MAiD decisions because the person requesting MAiD may “not be in their right mind.”

What is particularly interesting about this is that Questions 16 and 18 had nothing to do with mental illness or decision-making capacity. Yet concerns about capacity repeatedly appeared throughout the comments anyway.

We suspect this is, at least in part, a product of the survey’s earlier framing.

The preceding questions repeatedly introduced themes of mental illness, vulnerability, impaired judgment, and concerns about decision-making capacity. Those themes appear to have carried over into later responses, even when the later questions were not actually about capacity at all.

This is precisely why question order matters in survey design.

And it is also why placing the broad question — “Do you support MAiD as an end-of-life healthcare option?” — at the very end of the survey was such a serious methodological problem.

Any experienced survey designer understands that earlier questions can “prime” respondents by shaping the lens through which they interpret later ones. Several comments attached to Questions 16 and 18 appear to illustrate exactly that phenomenon: respondents continued discussing mental illness and incapacity even though those concepts were not part of the question itself.

Do You Support MAiD?

Question 20

“I support MAiD as an end-of-life health care option.”

A total of 64.9% of respondents support MAiD as an end-of-life health care option Meanwhile, 31.5% disagreed.

This is lower than the level of support for MAiD we see nationally, though not unexpected given Alberta’s conservative leanings. Still, 65% support is a clear message that MAiD is an option that Albertan’s want available to them.

Unfortunately, they redacted the comment section so we cannot even explore the thoughts of those who agree or disagree. That redaction speaks for itself! Below are comments reflecting both agreement and disagreement with MAiD pulled from the response sections of previous questions.

Sample Respondent Comments

Final Thoughts

Governments are free to disagree with public opinion. They are free to pursue policies that are unpopular. But if they choose to ask the public for input on deeply personal healthcare issues, there should be some expectation of transparency about what they heard — especially when the resulting legislation appears to move in the opposite direction of the feedback they received.

The results of Alberta’s own survey do not show overwhelming support for the direction the UCP has chosen to take with Bill 18. In several key areas, Albertans appear to have expressed caution about expanding family authority, resistance to additional restrictions, and continued support for MAiD as an end-of-life healthcare option.

Yet those results were never voluntarily released to the public. Instead, Albertans were left to debate Bill 18 without access to the very consultation data their government had collected.

That alone should concern people — regardless of where they stand on MAiD.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

But we may need to hold off on releasing the full dataset for a little longer.

As we began reviewing the comments, we noticed something interesting that we think deserves a closer look before we share everything publicly.

To be clear: we have not read every single comment. There are over 20,000 of them. But, while randomly selecting responses for analysis, we came across multiple comments from respondents claiming they were unable to submit a written comment unless they selected a response favourable to the Alberta government’s position (the “agree” response).

For example, regarding the statement:

“People with mental illnesses as their only medical condition should not be able to apply for MAiD,”

one respondent wrote:

Under another question, a respondent commented:

Here are a few more:

We have only reviewed a very small fraction of the comments and conducted some basic keyword searches. But already, we have found several comments suggesting that some respondents may have been unable to enter a written comment when their selected response did not align with the position being tested in the question.

How many more are there? How many didn’t bother to mention that they were unable to enter a written comment? How many didn’t even realize that should have been an option?

Importantly, some of these respondents appear to be saying they changed their answer in order to access the comment box. If true, that would not only affect the written comments — it could also raise questions about the reliability of the numerical survey results themselves.

Initially, we assumed the overwhelmingly anti-MAiD tone of many of the comments simply reflected a highly motivated minority of respondents opposed to MAiD. But after seeing these comments, we decided to take a closer look.

We selected two questions where the survey responses most strongly diverged from the Alberta government’s eventual policy direction. If there were any issue affecting comment visibility or response logic for respondents who answered against the Alberta government’s policy position, we would expect the discrepancy between the numerical responses and written comments to be most visible there.

Question 16 - Family members should be able to challenge a MAiD decision (i.e. whether a person is approved for MAiD or denied.)”

(We’ll have more to say later about how problematic that question is on its own.)

According to the survey’s reported results:

• 35% agreed with the statement (meaning they believed family members should be able to challenge a MAiD decision)

• 55.2% disagreed

• roughly 10% were neutral, unsure, or preferred not to answer

We then reviewed a random sampling of written comments from pages from the beginning, middle, and end of the responses. A total of 266 responses were analysed and categorized as:

• agreeing with the statement,

• disagreeing with the statement, or

• unclear/ambiguous

If a response was not clearly one or the other, we intentionally placed it in the ambiguous category to avoid over-representing either side.

What we found was striking.

Of those 266 comments:

• 77.4% supported family members being able to challenge MAiD decisions

• only 8.3% opposed it

• 14.3% were unclear or ambiguous

That is a massive difference—over a 40-point swing in the agree/disagree responses. Because this was not a formal random sample of the entire dataset, we are not presenting these figures as statistically definitive. But even allowing for some sampling error or judgment calls in categorization, the discrepancy is far too large to ignore.

What about a different but related question?

Question 18 - Family members should be able to access health care records relating to MAID for the purposes of challenging MAID decisions.

The discrepancy in question 18 was even more dramatic.

According to the survey’s reported results:

• 31.1% agreed with the statement (meaning they believed family members should have access to a person’s health care records for the purpose of challenging a MAiD decision)

• 58.2% disagreed

• roughly 11% were neutral, unsure, or preferred not to answer

We again categorized a random sample of written comments from pages from the beginning, middle, and end of the responses. This time for 186 responses.

Of those 186 comments:

• 79.6% agreed that family members should be able access a person’s health care records for the purpose of challenging MAiD decisions

• only 7.5% disagreed

• 12.9% were unclear or ambiguous

That’s hovering around a 50-point swing. Can that be accurate?

Thoughts

We are biased. Everyone is. We know that. But we made a genuine effort to categorize the comments accurately and cautiously. It is certainly possible that our judgment skewed the results slightly in one direction or another. But enough to explain a 40- or 50-point gap? We doubt it.

There is no other way to say it: the results from these comment samples are staggeringly different from the actual survey response distribution. If this sample is broadly representative, and if our analysis is reasonably accurate, that raises serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the survey results themselves.

If the UCP is relying on the survey comments while ignoring the actual survey results, it becomes easier to understand how they justified pushing Bill 18 ahead. The comments give the overwhelming impression that Albertans want more safeguards, less access, and greater external oversight of MAiD. But the actual survey results tell a very different story: a plurality of Albertans appear to believe that MAiD legislation and safeguards are adequate as they are.

We want to be very clear: this is not a formal statistical analysis, and it does not prove wrongdoing or manipulation. We are not making that claim. There may be legitimate reasons for the discrepancy. Perhaps there was a technical error in how the survey response logic was coded. Perhaps the way our information request was processed created an incomplete or distorted dataset (please not another 900 pages!). Or perhaps there is no technical issue at all, and respondents who supported the UCP’s position were simply far more likely to leave written comments.

At this point, it is difficult to come up with an obvious explanation for the size of the discrepancy between the survey responses and the written comments. But it is an interesting enough discrepancy that we think it deserves further investigation before we release the full dataset publicly.

What’s Next

We are now submitting another Freedom of Information Request to Alberta for additional technical information about the survey design and response logic — including whether comment boxes were conditionally displayed depending on how respondents answered certain questions.

We still hope to publish our broader analysis Monday morning. If we need more time, we’ll let everyone know and aim for Tuesday or Wednesday instead. We’ve spent far too much time today reading and analyzing these comments, and not enough time writing.

That analysis will still include all the survey responses, sample comments, and our overall impressions. But for now, we are likely going to hold back releasing the full 900+ page dataset until we better understand what may have happened here.

Stay tuned…

Subscribe now