"Doctors in Canada propose euthanasia for babies with disabilities"
Are you scared or outraged yet?
We've seen a number of articles floating around recently from outlets like Christian Today1 and PJ Media23 with headlines stating that "Doctors in Canada propose euthanasia for babies with disabilities.”
They seem to all be referencing testimony by Dr. Louis Roy given to the Commons' Special Committee of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) on October 7, 2022, with his testimony based on recommendations from the Quebec College of Physicians4
All too often, right-leaning, conservative, and religious outlets strip away key details and context, deliberately keeping words like “disabilities vague and ill-defined. They want readers to believe that newborns with conditions like autism, Down syndrome, blindness, or even a limb difference—all perfectly compatible with a long, meaningful life—are being targeted. These publications want you to think doctors are suggesting that newborns should be killed simply because of the presence of any "disability".
Except…that’s not what is being discussed by the Quebec College of Physicians, not even close. We want to give you some context so that when you come across this argument you can respond with some facts and compassion for the families faced with such difficult situations.
Here is the translated excerpt from the Colleges recommendations:
0–1 year
Our reflection is based on the following considerations:
Very grim prognosis and unbearable living conditions in cases of severe malformations or serious multi-symptom syndromes, eliminating any possibility of relief or survival.
For these small human beings who suffer needlessly, medical assistance in dying, framed by a strict protocol, may be an appropriate form of care. From this perspective, the experience of the Netherlands (the Groningen Protocol, included in the annex) appears to us as a path worth exploring.
And here is the exact statement by Dr. Louis Roy:
"…the same for babies from zero to one years of age who are born with severe deformations, very grave and severe syndromes, medical syndromes whose life expectancy and level of suffering are such that it would make sense to ensure that they do not suffer given that the possibility of surviving is basically nil...we could explore that option" (Dr. Louis Roy)
They have very clearly laid out criteria that would make assisted death something that could be ethically permissible, even ethically required—severe deformations and medical syndromes that are incompatible with life and are resulting in severe suffering.
There’s a massive difference between a newborn or young child with a "disability" who can live a long life, versus one with a condition so severe that they are only going to live hours or days, and suffering the entire time. But in articles about MAiD for infants, it is frequently all mashed together, one big scary blob called “euthanizing babies with disabilities.”
Since these media reports won’t do this, let us give you some very real, very tragic examples of medical conditions with little to no chance of survival:
Trisomy 13 or trisomy 185: These infants have severe heart and brain malformation, often resulting in death within days or weeks. Parents are generally offered two options: try every medical intervention possible, or focus on making their infant comfortable and pain-free until death occurs.
Anencephaly6: Major portions of the brain and skull never develop. These infants can sometimes breathe without assistance, but they never become conscious. Life is usually measured in hours or days. Comfort care—holding them, keeping them warm, making sure they don’t struggle—is often the most humane care for them
Thanatophoric dysplasia7: A skeletal disorder where the chest does not grow large enough for the lungs to expand on inhalation. Babies are born gasping for breath and often die shortly after birth from respiratory failure. Artificial ventilation may keep them alive a little longer, but they don’t fix the problem. Comfort care is often the path families choose.
Body-stalk anomaly8: A rare and severe defect where the abdominal organs develop outside the body with almost no umbilical cord. In addition, severe malformations of the limbs, spine, head and chest are also common. There is no treatment, and this condition is almost always fatal.
And then there is bilateral renal agenesis:9 (no kidneys, no amniotic fluid, no lungs). This is a diagnosis where there just isn’t a road to survival.
The current treatment for severe cases of these conditions varies. For trisomy 13 or 18, sometimes limited surgeries are attempted, but most families choose palliative care; for anencephaly there is no corrective treatment, only comfort measures; for thanatophoric dysplasia, short-term ventilation may be used but does not change the outcome, so comfort care is standard; and for bilateral renal agenesis there is no curative treatment at all10, so only supportive and palliative care is possible. In most cases, the prognosis is short, and measured in hours or days.
We already have an ethical framework for these situations. It’s called neonatal or perinatal palliative care11. If a baby’s condition is so severe that treatment would only add suffering, the focus shifts to comfort. Doctors and nurses help manage pain and respiratory distress, give sedation if needed, and support the family. Parents are encouraged to hold their baby, take photos, make memories, bathe them, dress them. Everything is about comfort, dignity, and love. Considering MAiD in these cases is an ethical questions that must be asked and considered.
Now, does any of that sound remotely like “killing babies with Down syndrome”? No. But that’s the picture the headline wants burned into your brain.
And this is where the dishonesty really shows. It’s a classic dysphemism—using the harshest possible words to make something sound cruel and frightening. It’s the same trick as saying “Canada to treat cancer with poison.” Technically, yes—chemotherapy is a poison. But when you frame it that way, stripped of context, it sounds barbaric. You’re not being asked to think; you’re being pushed to recoil. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. They’re taking nuanced, heartbreaking medical realities and collapsing them into a scary slogan about “euthanizing babies” to get clicks and fire up outrage.
We’re not even taking a position here on whether MAiD for infants should be on the table in some circumstances. That’s a hard, complicated debate. What we are saying is this: if you’re going to talk about it, at least be honest. At least acknowledge that there’s a world of difference between a baby who could live a full and meaningful life with a disability and an infant who will not survive more than a few days.
When people erase those differences they’re not helping anyone. Not the infants. Not the families who are living this heartbreak in real time. Not the rest of us who are trying to understand what compassion looks like in the hardest situations imaginable.
They’re just selling fear. And families deserve better than that.
This is not a fringe website. They get more than 13 million pages view per month. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Progress is being made in new, experimental treatments. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24161-renal-agenesis#management-and-treatment
keep it up! freedom of choice!
Thanks to both of you for addressing the right wing’s constant use of hot button words, cherry picked situations and other somewhat successful strategies. Here in Alberta, our MAGA-UCP government has used this in many instances to justify cruel and unnecessary policy measures. I am so sad that the crazies have chosen such a sensitive and personal decision to attack.