After we published our response1 to The Atlantic’s September feature on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada2, we sent a courtesy copy to the magazine’s editors. To their credit, they reached out and invited us to submit a shorter version—250 to 350 words—for their Commons section. We were glad for the opportunity. The original article felt like an 11,000 word attack on MAiD, so being offered space to correct even a small part of it felt worthwhile.
But the process revealed something important about how “balance” works in major media—especially when complex issues like MAiD are involved.
The limits of 350 words
Responding to 11,000 words in 350 is like trying to pour an ocean through a keyhole. Entire themes, factual corrections, and missing context had to be reduced to single sentences. Major problems with the article had to be prioritized like a triage exercise, and we ended up leaving out more than we included—not because the concerns weren’t serious, but because there was simply no room.
We accepted that constraint. That’s the editorial format. But it’s worth noting how structurally uneven that is: one writer receives 11,000 words to shape a narrative, and those most familiar with the topic get a few paragraphs to undo the damage.
About the edits
In addition to the word limit, the editor strongly suggested that we soften or remove some criticism of the reporting itself—specifically, our concern that the author and The Atlantic’s editorial process appeared to overlook fact-checking provided by front-line MAiD providers. We were told our criticism might be unfair to Plott Calabro.
We understand caution around tone. But those concerns weren’t invented; they came directly from MAiD providers involved in the fact-checking process, who felt that their expertise was disregarded. And that is central to our concerns. When the very experts a reporter is seeking to understand feel dismissed or sidelined, it raises questions about what the reporting was trying to accomplish. Maybe the issue wasn’t with Plott Calabro herself. Maybe the narrative direction came from the editorial process above her. But it does suggest that the story The Atlantic wanted to tell—and the story MAiD providers thought they were supporting—were not the same.
In the end, we were placed in a bind: accept edits that softened our point, or decline and risk having no letter published at all. We chose to proceed, because a weakened correction is still better than silence.
And then: a three-month delay
The original article was published in The Atlantic on Aug 11, 2025. Our letter was published in their Commons section three months later on November 11. By the time the correction appeared, the misinformation had already spread, been amplified, and shaped public debate. It is hard to meaningfully “balance” a narrative when the response arrives months after the story has already traveled the world.3
Why we’re sharing this
We appreciate that The Atlantic gave space for a counterpoint. That is not nothing. But what was printed was a shortened and softened version of what we wrote—not because our criticisms weren’t well supported, but because of editorial limitations that narrowed how fully we could express them.
To be fair to readers—and to the conversation—we’re providing access to the same information in a way that isn’t limited by 350 words.
Here is a link to the published version in The Atlantic’s Commons section. We recommend reading it there if you have a subscription; the other letters are also worth reading.
Here is our original Substack article (all 3000+ words), which gives the broader context and more detailed analysis that simply could not fit within the editorial limits.
Below is our full 350-word submission, exactly as published in The Atlantic.
We are Registered Nurses with expertise in palliative care and Medical Assistance in Dying. Canada is Killing Itself by Elaina Plott Calabro ignores key facts and frames MAID in an unflattering light. What might have been a fair exploration of MAID in Canada instead reads like a case assembled to argue against the practice itself. While there are moments of useful and fact-based information, they are so surrounded by misleading half-truths, emotionally charged language, and selective omissions, that it would be hard for a reader unfamiliar with MAID to parse the good from the bad.
Beyond the provocative title, Plott Calabro depicts a MAID conference as if it were a sinister gathering, reminds readers that MAID “would have been considered homicide” a decade ago, and describes MAID as an “open-ended medical experiment.” This suggests chaos where there is, in fact, rigorous regulation and ethical oversight.
The article repeatedly describes changes to MAID legislation as “expansion,” which ignores the legal history upon which the practice rests. Every so-called expansion has actually been an attempt to bring the law back in line with the Supreme Court’s Carter v. Canada decision. Any future evolution will also realign MAID legislation with the Carter decision and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand how MAID became legal in Canada. Likewise, the claim that poverty or inadequate supports are driving people to MAID distorts the law, clinical practice, and federal data that says otherwise. Legislation explicitly prohibits approving MAID for social or economic reasons. People can request MAID for any reason they wish, but to be approved, suffering must stem from a medical condition, not their social circumstances. Social circumstances may influence a MAID request, but to suggest they’re a systemic factor in approvals is untrue.
Perhaps most telling is how anti-MAID groups seized on this article, celebrating that mainstream media is finally amplifying their alarmist, fear-mongering narratives. The article reinforces their false talking points about targeting vulnerable people, financial savings, and unregulated “killing”, while ignoring the many Canadians who describe MAID as bringing dignity and peace to themselves and their loved ones.
If you’ve made it this far, thank you. MAiD deserves honesty, clarity, and context—and we’re committed to providing it.
The Atlantic is Killing Its Reputation - MAiD in Canada
Canada Is Killing Itself - The Atlantic
There is usually about a two-month delay before letters appear in The Atlantic’s Commons section, but the November issue was a special release, which meant there was no Commons section at all.
Your very measured response is still persuasive, and was certainly worth the effort and stress you went through. The fact that your language is so moderate when compared to the original article is also very noticeable and adds greatly to your credibility. Well done!!
Ah, you were subjected to the written equivalent of the “Gish Gallop”, a well known debate technique where Mr. Gish would use his time to declare multiple lies and half truths, and in the other sides equal time they were tasked with reasoned rebuttal which leads takes longer than the lie, and precludes time for careful truth. A tough situation that I would say you did as best possible in the circumstances. With MAID , it is extremely difficult to change minds. Hopefully readers of the Atlantic are not “ true believers”, and noted your fine response.