A Six-Week Exchange With the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Debating MAiD when mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition

We took a bit of time over the holidays to step back, catch our breath, and think carefully about how we want to begin the year. As we head into 2026, we want to start with something substantive — something that reflects both the seriousness of this topic and our belief that difficult issues deserve sustained, thoughtful engagement.

Over the next six weeks, we’ll be participating in a written exchange with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC). This exchange will focus specifically on Medical Assistance in Dying when a mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. Each contribution will be cross-published on both their blog and here on our Substack, with each side taking turns responding directly to the other’s arguments.

This exchange grew out of two related events.

1. On October 28, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition held a press conference at the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa in support of Bill C-218, a private member’s bill proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code to specify that a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which a person may receive Medical Assistance in Dying.

2. Following that press conference, we published a critique of the claims and arguments presented, raising concerns about both the factual accuracy and the framing used to discuss MAiD for mental illness.

In the weeks that followed, Gordon Friesen, president of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, reached out to us to suggest a more structured, written exchange. Rather than continuing to talk past one another through separate posts and reactions, the proposal was to engage directly — laying out our disagreements clearly and responding to each other’s arguments in a transparent, sequential way. We agreed that this was a worthwhile approach.

Here’s how the exchange will work:

• January 12: The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will publish the first post, responding to our critique of their October press conference. This piece will appear on both their blog and here on our Substack.

• January 19: We will publish our response, also cross-posted on both platforms.

• This back-and-forth will continue weekly for a total of six weeks, with each side responding in turn.

Our hope is that this exchange will be civil, focused, and genuinely productive. We do not expect to persuade one another to abandon deeply held positions. But we do believe there is value in slowing the conversation down — moving beyond soundbites and headlines — and allowing readers to see where the real points of disagreement lie.

MAiD, and particularly MAiD where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition, raises complex ethical, clinical, and legal questions. These are not issues that benefit from caricature or assumption. A structured exchange allows each side to challenge the other’s claims directly, clarify what is being argued, and give readers the opportunity to assess those arguments on their merits.

We’re grateful for the chance to engage in this way, and we appreciate the willingness on both sides to commit to a sustained, public dialogue. We hope you’ll read along, consider the arguments carefully, and join us in approaching this conversation with the seriousness it deserves.

The exchange begins here on January 12.