Asked. Answered. Ignored?
Alberta plans MAiD restrictions but has yet to release the results of its own consultation.
In early 2016, with the deadline for the federal government to respond to the Supreme Court’s Carter1 decision fast approaching and legislation still uncertain, Alberta faced a practical reality. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled in Carter, and medical assistance in dying would soon become legal. Whether the province liked it or not, it needed a regulatory framework.
So the Alberta government — then led by Rachel Notley’s NDP2 — did what governments often do: it asked what the people of Alberta thought.
Between February 29 and March 31, 2016, an online survey collected approximately 15,000 responses. Thirty-one organizations submitted written briefs, and another 31 individuals wrote or emailed with their views.
Only eight weeks later, on May 27, 2016, the province released a 31-page public report: What We Heard: Medical Assistance in Dying.3
The document summarized the feedback, published the survey numbers, and outlined areas of agreement and disagreement. The entire process — from the survey’s close to the public report — took about two months.
The point is simple: Alberta asked the questions. Then made the answers public.
Now consider the present.
In late 2024, Alberta once again conducted public engagement on medical assistance in dying — this time under Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP.4 The survey ran from November 18 to December 20, 2024. As of today, the government website still lists the engagement status as “Results under review.”5
More than 14 months after the survey closed, there is still no comprehensive public “What We Heard” report—or any public disclosure at all.
Instead, results to most of the questions surfaced through the Edmonton Journal on February 11, 2025.6 The data they obtained suggested:
Respondents generally did not support adding new provincial safeguards.
There was significant openness for allowing MAiD in cases of mental illness.
There was support for the principle that a competent adult’s decision should not be subject to family veto.
On the question of whether Alberta should create more safeguards, more respondents disagreed than agreed (47.2% vs 38.3%). On whether people with mental illness as their only condition should be barred from applying, more respondents disagreed than agreed (45% vs 40%). And on family involvement, respondents leaned strongly toward patient autonomy: 55.2% opposed allowing families to challenge MAiD decisions, and 58.2% opposed giving families access to medical records to support those challenges.7
Importantly, the Edmonton Journal received the results less than two months after the survey closed, indicating the data had already been compiled, analyzed, and internally summarized. The continued absence of a public report therefore seems not a matter of readiness, but of political decision-making.
And yet, before Albertans have been given a full accounting of their own feedback, the government began previewing legislative restrictions anyway. In a February 24, 2026 update, the province said it plans to introduce legislation to regulate MAiD in Alberta,8 and Joseph Schow has since described prohibitions aimed at “select groups”9—including mature minors, people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness, those making advance requests, and adults without health-care decision-making capacity—alongside new oversight rules for health-care workers involved in referrals, assessments, or provision.10
What remains unclear is on what evidentiary basis these changes are being advanced, and whether they reflect the expressed views of Albertans. Until a proper What We Heard report is released, the public cannot assess whether the proposed direction aligns with public opinion.
Some of the proposed restrictions were directly addressed in the 2024 engagement. Albertans answered — but their responses, so far, appear to have been ignored.
Don’t Ask, Can’t Tell?
One omission is worth noting. In 2016, the province explicitly asked Albertans whether mature minors should be eligible based on competence rather than age, with 54% supporting a competency‑based assessment compared to 39% favouring an age‑based criterion. The 2024 survey appears not to have revisited that question. And yet, excluding mature minors remains part of the government’s stated direction.11 If public opinion has changed since 2016, Albertans should be shown that. If it has not, Albertans should be shown that as well. Either way, policies should not proposed in the dark.
When governments choose not to ask the question, they also choose not to confront the answer.
In 2016, the province gathered public input and published it within weeks.
In 2026, 14 months after the 2024 survey closed, the public is still waiting.
That contrast is difficult to ignore.
Public Engagement Requires Public Results
Public engagement is not a symbolic exercise. It is a matter of democratic legitimacy and procedural fairness: when governments invite citizens to participate, transparency about the results is part of the obligation. When governments ask citizens to weigh in on questions of autonomy, suffering, and end-of-life decision-making, those results belong to the public.
For that reason, we have submitted a Freedom of Information request seeking the full survey results and any records showing whether a decision was made to release — or to withhold — a “What We Heard” report. Specifically:
The complete 2024 survey results, including aggregate data and response breakdowns (and any cross-tabulations the government relied on);
Any internal summaries, slide decks, briefing notes, or analysis prepared for the Minister or Cabinet;
Internal correspondence and communication planning documents discussing whether, when, or how the results would be released.
If the government believes its proposed restrictions reflect the will of Albertans, the evidence should be made public; if those restrictions are being imposed against their will, Albertans deserve to know that as well.
Should these records be disclosed to us, we will publish and analyse them in full. Stay tuned.
This last one was an interesting finding, as families are generally not permitted to override the decisions of a competent adult. We’ve seen this pattern before—where MAiD is treated as though it should be exempt from the standard ethical and legal principles that apply to every other area of healthcare.
If the proposed changes to oversight rules for healthcare workers involved in referrals, assessments, and provisions allow health care professionals to refuse participation without ensuring patients are fully informed of all legal options, that raises important questions about informed consent.
This is not legal anywhere in Canada as of March 2026. While there have been discussions about permitting mature minors to access MAiD in limited circumstances—most notably in the February 2023 report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying—there are no current federal bills proposing such a change. The UCP’s move to prohibit MAiD for mature minors appears aimed at pre-empting any potential future federal legalization.
One can’t help but wonder if the Alberta government was expecting (hoping for?) different results.
The fact that the majority of a population supports something does not mean that that thing should be implemented. What percentage of Albertans think it’s acceptable to kill disabled kids with “MAiD” is irrelevant to how cruel it is to tell disabled children that their highest aspiration in life should be to become a corpse.