The Horrifying Misinformation About Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Jordan Peterson and Kelsi Sheren Seem to Want You to Believe

“If you take MAiD…you are under a paralytic…you actually drown to death…you’re waterboarded to death within your own body and you can’t move or do anything about it…[you would] be screaming if [you] weren’t under a paralytic”.

That is a quote from Kelsi Sheren, a recent guest on Dr. Jordan Peterson’s video titled “The Horrifying Truth Behind MAiD They Aren’t Telling You”. If this statement horrifies you, good—it should, if it were true. But thankfully, it is absolutely, verifiably, not true.  

In fact, over the course of the 13-minute video, there is hardly a single accurate fact about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). So in this newsletter, I will address all the misinformation contained in the video. It is crucial to recognize that this type of misinformation can cause serious harm, as Dr. Henriquez, a MAiD provider in Vancouver, explains:

“The misinformation in these messages is immeasurably determinantal both to patients and their families. For families already weighed down by grief and loss, it can further their suffering with fear over the safety of their loved ones, when the message they need is one of reassurance and support. Furthermore, patients themselves will face even more barriers to alleviating their suffering, not only due to the concerns of family and friends but also from their own fears about further suffering. Alleviating suffering, and providing a peaceful death is central, and inseparable from MAiD. The families of those who have chosen an assisted death deserve the truth, which can only serve to help them in their journey to heal from the loss of their loved one. When we are faced with this kind of misinformation, it is our responsibility to respond critically and comprehensively, so that we can ensure our patients are as informed as they can be about their healthcare options.”  

So that’s exactly what I’ll do.

Here are just a few of the corrections I will make:

• No, we don’t use the medication Kelsi is talking about for MAiD in Canada.

• No, you will not drown to death if you undergo MAiD, or anything even remotely like that. 

• No, the medications do not “tear up your lungs.”

• No, 17 year-olds cannot have MAiD, and there was never a law proposing to allow that.

• No, allowing MAiD is not comparable to what the Nazis did (I can’t believe I have to say that!).

Then, at the end of this newsletter, I’ll include a detailed breakdown of every instance of misinformation I’ve found in this video, including timestamps so you can hear for yourself the context in which these claims were made.      

But first, who are Kelsi Sheren and Jordan Peterson? 

Kelsi Sheren is a war veteran, author, coach, and public speaker. She doesn’t seem to have any specific medical training, and I couldn’t find any record of her receiving post-secondary education in healthcare, the sciences, or anything else that might provide her with expertise in MAiD. I reached out to Kelsi asking about her educational background, but did not receive a response.   

Dr. Jordan Peterson is a well-known Clinical Psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He’s published hundreds of papers, taught at Harvard, and by all accounts is an exceptionally intelligent man. I’d think someone with his educational background would know how to detect misinformation when he sees it.

To be clear, my view of Jordan isn’t entirely negative. While I strongly disagree with his denial of climate change science, I appreciate his support for Canada’s universal health care system—something any good Canadian should. My concern arises when he asserts an opinion on a topic without seeming to understand the material. Zack Beauchamp of Vox captured this well when he wrote that “a hallmark of Peterson’s approach as a public intellectual [is] taking inflammatory, somewhat misinformed stances on issues of public concern outside his area of expertise.”

That seems to be what has happened in this interview. Neither Jordan nor Kelsi are medical doctors or pharmacists, and I have been unable to find any evidence that either of them have any expertise in the relevant physiology, biology, chemistry, anatomy, or pharmacology to make or endorse any of the assertions in this video. Now to be clear, Kelsi does most of the talking, but Jordan has taken this section of the video from a longer interview, and given it a very clickbait title, signalling his approval of the content. And considering his history of spreading misinformation about MAiD, I view him equally as culpable for spreading this misinformation as Kelsi.  

I have reached out to both Kelsi and Jordan for comments and to inquire if they have any corrections or clarifications regarding their statements in the video. As of now, I have not received a response. Should they provide any updates after publication, I will include their statements here.

But wait—I’m suggesting that Kelsi Sheren and Dr. Jordan Peterson lack expertise on MAiD, and then promised to correct all the misinformation they’ve provided. Why should you believe me? In an upcoming article, I’ll discuss how to spot and avoid medical misinformation on the internet, but here’s a sneak preview: Does the person have relevant qualifications? I would argue that Kelsi and Jordan do not.  

As for me, I’m a Registered Nurse in British Columbia, Canada, with a focus on MAiD education. I’ve taught the nuances and legalities of MAiD to healthcare professionals at all levels—from care aides to nurses to physicians. I can confidently state that I have expert level knowledge on this subject, and will now use that knowledge to provide you with high-quality, nurse-led education about MAiD.

Note: When talking about the MAiD medications, I will be using the protocol outlined by the BC Division of Family Practice. This is similar to MAiD medication protocols used across the country, with minor variations in each province or territory. Details on the different protocols can be found here.  

You Do Not Drown to Death

If you’ve watched the video already, you will have noticed that Kelsi references Dr. Zivot. He is an anesthesiologist who testified to a Canadian Senate Standing Committee about Medical Assistance in Dying On February 2, 2021. Kelsi’s claim that MAiD is akin to drowning comes from this one testimony, so we should start there. 

In his testimony, Dr. Zivot shared his experience in reviewing the autopsies of people in the USA who were executed by the government—that is, received capital punishment—and then attempted to apply his findings to MAiD. His conclusions seem to be these:

American Executions

When a person is executed in America, autopsies often show that their lungs are full of fluid, suggesting that they likely experienced a death similar to drowning. 

Fluid in the Lungs After MAiD? (Pulmonary Edema)

The medications used in American executions and MAiD are similar in that they are both intended to cause death. Therefore, it’s reasonable to worry that people undergoing MAiD might also be experiencing a death similar to drowning.

Autopsies After MAiD

Since Canada doesn’t routinely perform autopsies after a MAiD death, we can’t be certain that this isn’t happening during MAiD as well.

Paralytics

During MAiD, patients are administered a paralytic, which means they would not be able to move or express that they were suffering. So how can we be sure that they aren’t experiencing distress?  

Let’s look at each of these conclusions in detail:

American Executions

America, stop executing people. It’s cruel and unethical. 

Fluid in the Lungs After MAiD? (Pulmonary Edema)

The medications used for MAiD in Canada are completely different from the pentobarbital used in American executions, as described by Dr. Zivot. Pentobarbital is a barbiturate, while the medications used in MAiD—midazolam, propofol, and rocuronium—are not (a detailed description of these medications and their effects can be found in The MAiD Medications section below). You cannot attribute the effects of one drug to another simply because they are used in a similar context. 

To illustrate this point, consider the common medications Tylenol and Aspirin:

1. Tylenol (acetaminophen/paracetamol) is a non-opioid analgesic used to treat mild to moderate pain. 

2. Aspirin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) used to treat  pain, fever, and inflammation. 

Although both of these medications are used for pain relief, they are entirely different drugs. They differ on a molecular level, operate through different mechanisms within the body, and come with distinct risks, side effects, and potential adverse effects. For instance, giving a child tylenol is typically completely safe when used correctly, but aspirin should NOT be given to a child unless specifically directed by the child’s doctor due to its link with Reye’s Syndrome. (This is to illustration my point only. Please do not take this as advice about what medications to give your child—for that, talk to your child’s doctor).

Different medications can achieve the same outcome—like reducing pain or causing death—even though they are entirely different substances. 

The medications used in American executions are fundamentally different from those used in MAiD. There's no scientific basis for assuming that the drugs used in MAiD could cause fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema) simply because that was observed in American autopsies.

But that doesn’t mean we can just dismiss this as a possibility. Do we know anything about the MAiD medication that could make us think that this is a risk? For that I turned to Dr. Fruci, an anesthesiologist in Vancouver, BC, who had this to say when asked:

• Midazolam - “It doesn’t make any sense physiologically”

• Propofol - “NO…I would NOT expect this to cause pulmonary edema in a patient” [emphasis his]

• Rocuronium - “Absolutely not” 

Dr. Fruci was confident that this is not a concern, asserting that pulmonary edema does not occur with these medications. I trust his perspective, given his years of experience with these medications, over claims that aren't supported by scientific or pharmacological evidence. 

But what about Dr. Zivot’s concern that, since autopsies are not performed after MAiD, we can't be certain the lungs aren’t filled with fluid? Well, we actually have a pretty good idea about that. Let me explain.

Autopsies After MAiD

I’m not certain whether autopsies have been conducted after medically assisted deaths, but if they have, I suspect there have been very few—certainly not enough to draw broad conclusions from. However, some people choose to donate their organs, such as lungs, after receiving MAiD, and the donated lungs are rigorously inspected before transplantation. I’m not going to delve into the ethics of organ donation following MAiD, though that could be an interesting topic for another time. Instead, I’ll focus on the fact that organ donations have occurred after MAiD to challenge Dr. Zivot’s claims. To do so, we will walk through the process of inspecting and assessing lungs after they have been retrieved from the donor.       

Post-retrieval lung assessments 

Once the donor’s death is confirmed, they are taken to the operating room where their lungs, along with any other organs they intended to donate, are retrieved. The transplant team then inspects the lungs. In their study, Outcomes of Lung Transplantation from Organ Donation After MAiD, Watanabe et al. describe this assessment process in detail, including the assessment of thirty-three lung donations following MAiD. During these assessments, they note that "the airway was evaluated with bronchoscopy with special attention to evaluate for airway abnormalities and aspiration" [emphasis added]. A bronchoscopy is a procedure that allows a physician to look directly into the airways of the lungs using a thin, lighted tube, providing a clear view to check for abnormalities, or for fluid, food, or other material that may have entered the lungs (known as aspiration). If there was an accumulation of fluid in the lungs after MAiD, it would have been clearly visible during a bronchoscopy.

Let me make that more clear: Dr. Zivot claimed that his review of autopsies revealed lungs that were "twice the normal weight and full of water." When you consider that a typical adult's lungs weigh about 1000 grams (2.2 lbs), and since 1000 grams of water equals 1 litre, lungs that weigh twice as much due to being "full of water" would contain an additional litre of fluid. It is inconceivable that this would not have been noticed during a bronchoscopy.

Additional assessments of the lungs included x-rays to check for consolidations (areas where air in the small airways has been replaced with fluid), examination of the lung's colour, a search for nodular lesions, evaluation for edema, and crucially, weighing the lungs. These assessments would have detected any fluid accumulation in the lungs, particularly at the levels suggested by Dr. Zivot.

But the assessment doesn't stop there. Of the cases reviewed by Watanabe et al., thirteen lungs were transplanted directly based on the initial assessments outlined above. However, in 25 MAiD cases, the lungs underwent further evaluation using ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP). EVLP is a procedure conducted after lung retrieval that allows for more accurate lung assessment and improvement of lung function. Among the 25 MAiD donations that underwent EVLP assessment, 76% were deemed suitable for transplant. This was actually higher compared to 65% of non-MAiD donations deemed suitable for transplant after EVLP assessment.

Watanabe et al. concluded that "outcomes after lung transplantation using MAiD donors are excellent and comparable to [other] donors" after examining survival rates, and ICU and hospital length of stay. This clearly shows that there is no evidence to support Dr. Zivot’s claims. In fact, the evidence strongly indicates that fluid is not accumulating in the lungs of people undergoing MAiD, and there is no reason to believe they are experiencing drowning during the process. Kelsi Sheren is repeating a flawed argument based on faulty science and a disregard for actual evidence. She might not know better, but Dr. Zivot and Jordan Peterson should.

Paralytics

The notion that patients undergoing MAiD are first administered a paralytic and are thus unable to express any suffering during the process is easily debunked. In reality, patients are not given a paralytic as the first step. Instead, they are placed into a very deep medical coma, followed by medication that stops their breathing. They are in such a profound state of unconsciousness, in fact, that in most cases they stop breathing on their own, with the final medication given to ensure that the diaphragm ceases to function.

The fact that Kelsi believe a paralytic is given first underscores the widespread misunderstanding of how the MAiD process actually works. And while Dr Zivot knows that a paralytic is given third—after midazolam and propofol—I struggle to understand how he believes the patient could be aware of anything after the dose of propofol. To explain my confusion, I will now guide you through the MAiD procedure, detailing the medications and their effects, the order in which they are administered, and the specific reasons these medications are chosen to ensure a peaceful death.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll skip over the thorough and often lengthy assessment process that patients must undergo before they can be found eligible and proceed with an assisted death. 

The MAiD Medications

Once an eligible person provides their final consent to receive the medications to end their life, the MAiD provider will proceed with the administration. The medications used for MAiD are the same as those commonly administered in hospitals across Canada and worldwide in acute care setting and for surgical sedation.

**All quotes in this section are attributed to Dr. Fruci, the anesthesiologist quoted above**  

Midazolam

The first medication administered is midazolam. As Dr. Fruci explains, “Midazolam is a very commonly used medication in the ORs [operating rooms], critical care, procedures and in palliative care. We use it quite a bit in the OR for sedation and in palliative care both for anxiolysis [to reduce anxiety] and sedation”. You might be more familiar with similar medications in the same class, such as Ativan, Valium, and Xanax. For MAiD, 10-20 mg of midazolam is given intravenously (IV) to induce a profound state of relaxation. The patient will either become very drowsy or begin to fall asleep. According to Dr. Fruci, 10-20 mg of midazolam IV “is very much within the normal range in palliative care”, and there is no reason to be concerned about its use for MAiD.  

Propofol

The next medication is Propofol. “Propofol works similar to midazolam in that it works on the GABAnergic system in the central nervous system…It is used to induce general anaesthesia in both the operating room and critical care areas. In palliative care it is used for palliative sedation”. If you’ve had surgery where you were “knocked out”, it is likely that propofol was used. 

For MAiD, 1000 mg of propofol is administered IV. This dose is “much higher than we would normally use [in the OR], but the goal for MAiD is very different from the goal in the OR”.

This higher dose is a significant point to consider. When something is consumed or administered at a dose significantly larger than normal, it can have negative, and sometimes fatal, consequences. Water, for instance, can be fatal if consumed in extreme amounts—the dose matters. 

To put the MAiD dose of propofol in context, a typical dose for general anaesthesia is “anywhere from 0.5-3 mg/kg as a single bolus”. For an average North American male, that would be around 250 mg—about a quarter of the MAiD dose. Is it reasonable for Dr. Zivot, Jordan, and Kelsi to be concerned about the effects of a dose four times the normal range? Absolutely. That’s why it’s important to consider other evidence (see Autopsies After MAiD above). However, there is simply no evidence to suggest that 1000 mg of propofol has any unintended or negative effects when used for MAiD—particularly when we consider what propofol does—and Dr Zivot doesn’t submit any.

The Effects of Propofol

Being under general anaesthesia, such as with propofol, is not the same as simply falling asleep. When you're asleep, there’s still some level of awareness of your surroundings, which is why a loud noise can wake you, even from a deep sleep. The effects of propofol are completely different. Under a general anaesthetic, a person’s mind and body are essentially separated, and they are placed into a medically induced coma. In this state, there is no awareness of their surroundings, and they will not experience anything that is happening. This is why a person waking up from surgery has no recollection of what occurred—not even a sense of time passing. (There is a type of sedation called procedural sedation, used for minor procedures, where the patient is not fully unconscious, but that isn’t relevant to this discussion.)

If you've had major surgery, you’ve likely experienced this. The anesthesiologist begins administering the medication, you lose consciousness, and then you wake up. From your perspective, nothing happened between losing consciousness and waking up, regardless of how long the surgery took. It’s not that you were merely unconscious during this period—your consciousness was completely turned off; there was no experience to be had. This is why propofol is used for MAiD: it removes the experience of death, allowing for a peaceful passing. The large dose of propofol ensures that the medically induced coma is very deep, so that death is truly peaceful, with no possibility of the patient experiencing anything. 

When I asked Dr. Fruci about the effects of such a large dose of propofol, he explained:

“At this dose I expect the patient to lose consciousness quickly and not be aware of ANYTHING [emphasis his]. As propofol causes the peripheral venous system to dilate and it works as a myocardial depressant, I would expect the patient's blood pressure to drop, but they would not be aware of this. I imagine in some patients who are frail etc. that at this dose would cause their death”. 

And that is exactly what we observe. In my experience, most patients enter such a deep medically induced coma that they stop breathing. If the MAiD protocol didn’t require the next medication, death could likely be pronounced at this point.

Propofol is specifically given to induce a very deep medical coma, ensuring a peaceful death—the exact opposite of what Dr. Zivot and Kelsi have claimed.

Dr. Zivot made another claim about propofol that wasn’t echoed by Kelsi—that propofol will “tear up your lungs.” This idea seems to stem from the fact that propofol can cause a stinging sensation when injected, especially into a small vein. Various MAiD medication protocols acknowledge this, which is why an optional injection of lidocaine, a local anaesthetic, is sometimes given just before propofol to numb the vein. Many MAiD providers administer lidocaine as standard practice to prevent any unnecessary discomfort.

A study by Hye-Joo Kang et al. highlights that the incidence of propofol injection pain is significantly lower when it is administered into a relatively larger vein, like the one at the elbow (antecubital fossa or ACF), compared to smaller veins in the back of the hand (22% versus 62%). This makes sense. The concentration of propofol would be higher in smaller veins, which may increase the likelihood of discomfort. Similar to the idea that the dose of a medication matters, the concentration also matters.

But could the larger dose of propofol used in MAiD somehow reach the lungs and cause pain or damage? This seems highly unlikely. First, there are no reports of such pain occurring when propofol is used in other contexts, such as in the operating room. Second, even at the higher doses used for MAiD, lung transplant assessments show no damage or inflammation that would suggest any harm to the lungs.

As with Dr. Zivot’s claim about “drowning,” his assertion that propofol tears up the lungs is purely speculative and lacks any scientific basis or supporting evidence. It can, therefore, be safely dismissed--just as Kelsi and Jordan should have done.

Rocuronium 

In most cases, the final medication administered during MAiD is rocuronium. As Dr. Fruci explains, “Rocuronium is a neuromuscular blocker used to cause paralysis of [skeletal] muscles, therefore it affects the diaphragm especially. We use it routinely in the OR and the ICU for intubation”. When a patient requires intubation—before surgery, for example—they are first given an anaesthetic, like propofol, followed by a paralytic, like rocuronium. This places them in a medical coma and stops them from breathing on their own. The medical team then takes over breathing for the patient using a bag or by connecting them to a ventilator. Patients waking up after surgery do not report any recollection or distress with this procedure. The MAiD process is similar, with the key difference being that breathing is allowed to stop, without intervention. 

Bupivacaine

Bupivacaine is an optional medication that can be administered after rocuronium if the patient's heart has not completely stopped. In my experience, bupivacaine is not commonly required.  

MAiD Medication Overview

I know that was a lot of information, so here’s a simple breakdown of the steps:

1. Light sedation and reduction of anxiety.

2. Very deep sedation/medical coma.

3. Stopping the patient’s breathing, if this hasn’t occurred already.

The medications used at each of these steps have been carefully selected to ensure the patient has a peaceful death. These medications are used daily across Canada in acute care setting and operating rooms, and we understand both what they do and, just as importantly, what they do not do. The notion that people receiving MAiD suffer a “death akin to drowning” is unsupported by any evidence. Suggesting otherwise only causes harm to both patients and their loved ones.

There’s lots of other misinformation in the video, so let’s address each one—briefly, I promise.

The Rest of the Misinformation

0:43

“If the MAiD people have their way” - Jordan 

I’m not entirely sure who Jordan means by “the MAiD people,” but I’ll assume he’s referring to those who support access to MAiD, like myself. The notion that “MAiD people” are pushing some agenda is simply absurd. I tackled this in detail in a previous article, but here’s the short version:

Picture a spectrum, with extreme positions on either end. On the far right are those who believe MAiD should never be permitted under any circumstances. These individuals seem to think that “the MAiD people” are at the far left, advocating for unlimited expansion of MAiD, where anyone could opt for it without any conditions. However, I would argue that no one actually holds this extreme left position. Instead, most of us who support access to MAiD fall somewhere in the middle. 

In this middle ground, we advocate for an individuals' right to make informed decisions about their own life and death, within a framework of reasonable restrictions and safeguards. If someone meets the criteria and chooses MAiD, they should have access to it. If they do not want MAiD, they should never be pressured into it. 

Our position isn’t about encouraging or discouraging the choice of MAiD; it’s about respecting personal autonomy when it comes to how much intolerable and irremediable suffering a person is willing to endure. Nothing more, nothing less.

0:49

“Romanticized death encounters distributed online” - Jordan

This is an example of taking a very uncharitable interpretation of what someone said. Jordan is likely referring to a film by Liz Carr, an actor and anti-MAiD activist, called Better Off Dead? In that film, a MAiD provider mentioned that this work was some of the most rewarding and beautiful they had ever done. On the surface, that might seem like a strange thing to say about death, but I completely understand and agree.

As a palliative care nurse, I’ve witnessed a lot of death. Some deaths are like what you see in movies, where the person says a few final words before peacefully drifting off—like the father’s death in the beautiful 2003 film Big Fish. Unfortunately, that kind of peaceful death is not guaranteed. Too many deaths are prolonged and painful—appearing more like the king’s death in the first season of HBO’s House of the Dragon. High-quality palliative care can alleviate much of the suffering that often accompanies death, but not all of it. Believe me, I’ve tried. When I succeeded in relieving suffering, those were the most rewarding moments of my career. When I couldn’t, those were the hardest days for everyone involved. The sense of reward from this work often comes from the profound relief of suffering. But that’s not the only reason.

While death is always tragic, it can also bring moments of beauty. One “side effect” of MAiD—if I can call it that—is that it provides a defined date, giving people time to get their affairs in order. This often includes the opportunity to express to their loved ones just how much they’ve valued their shared life, how grateful they are for those experiences, and to convey their love for one another. I’ve witnessed this life closure before both natural and MAiD deaths, and it’s beautiful every time. But far too many people don’t get that opportunity. Knowing that you’ve helped facilitate those meaningful moments can be deeply rewarding, and Jordan is not going to take that away from anyone.

0:59

“Well here’s what’s really troubling about that and nobody seems to know this” - Kelsi

One clear sign that someone is about to tell you something untrue is when they claim to have exclusive access to information that everyone else is ignoring—especially when they have no expertise in the subject. In this case, nobody knows what Kelsi is about to say because it simply isn’t true.   

1:10

“People don’t understand how MAiD works” - Kelsi

I would argue it is clear that Kelsi doesn’t know how MAiD works. 

1:25

“But what I found out yesterday that really really bothered me was the mechanism of the actual procedure” - Kelsi

She found something out yesterday, and now she’s an expert on the MAiD procedure? Unlikely. More on confirmation bias in a bit.  

1:33

“So there’s this drug called sodium thero-pentol” - Kelsi

I think she means sodium thiopental, which is not used for MAiD in Canada. Whatever she has to say about this has no relevance to MAiD whatsoever. 

1:41

“And the anesthesiologist that came forward with this…for the Senate Subcommittee talking about this with MAiD and his concerns with it because MAiD is being seen as compassionate and empathetic in care…” - Kelsi

Dr. Zivot talked about pentobarbital, so this doesn't apply to MAiD in Canada. It's not relevant.

2:00

“You know that the Nazi euthanasia program started with compassion and care” - Jordan

The Nazis used the terms “compassion” and “euthanasia” during World War II to euphemistically—and misleadingly—describe their campaign of mass murder. Some opponents of assisted dying use this terminology to evoke that horrific history and falsely equate Nazi atrocities with today’s assisted dying programs. However, the modern use of the term "euthanasia"—the preferred term for assisted dying in Europe—refers to the voluntary, legal, and clinician-administered assisted death of a person under specific, safeguarded circumstances, including capable and informed consent. These are two entirely unrelated concepts. 

While reasonable people can engage in thoughtful debate on the ethics of MAiD, both for and against, no reasonable or serious person would ever defend what the Nazis did, especially on ethical grounds.  

2:05

“When I got to do Triggernometry [a right-wing podcast] we went to the war museums and what terrified me the most was walking through the World War II portion and seeing the same verbiage” - Kelsi

2:15

“Yeh, yeh. It’s the same thing, definitely. It’s identical. The mentally ill, the people that are…yeah yeah..people too distressed to live” - Jordan 

This is not the first time Jordan has compared MAiD with what the Nazi’s did, so it’s reasonable to believe Jordan actually believes this. But there was nothing voluntary or safeguarded about what the Nazis did. That was genocide and the worst possible war crime. There is absolutely no comparison between those atrocities and modern assisted dying programs.

2:31

“So the sodium thiopental…this anesthesiologist was like it’s going missing…we can’t get it anymore all of a sudden, and so he started researching it…it’s made in Italy..and under EU laws you can never make a drug that it going to be used for executions…the United States and canada has been using it for execution..for the death penalty…” - Kelsi

Canada has not had an execution since 1962. The last execution was the double hanging of Arthur Lucas and Ronald Turpin on December 11, 1962, at Toronto's Don Jail. Moreover, the drug in question is not used for MAiD in Canada, making this point entirely irrelevant. 

3:13

“They got over 300 autopsies of individuals who were executed in America and…85% of those bodies showed a two times level increase of water in the lungs, so what was happening is when this drug is pushed it causes a drowning and it is stated as akin to dying by waterboarding or drowning”. - Kelsi

Completely different medication, so not relevant for MAiD. But discussed above anyway. 

3:42

“Meaning, the reason people in Canada who are given MAiD seem peaceful is because they’re given a paralytic first, so they’re completely paralyzed then this drug is administered as one of the four and they start drowning to death...ok?” - Kelsi 

No! That is not Ok. That would never be ok. Which is why I’m glad it’s not true! Also, a paralytic is given last, most often after the person has already died. This is discussed above. 

4:00

“So that means that when it is taken by IV it takes 10 to 15 minutes that that person could be literally drowning, well they are they’re drowning to death but they could be screaming if they weren’t under a paralytic” - Kelsi

No. Simply not true. See above. 

4:14

“We waterboarded people in Guantanamo. There’s a reason we had to stop, it falls under cruel and unusual punishment” - Kelsi

Did Kelsi waterboard people? I certainly hope not. I could never do something like that. 

See what I did there? That was an uncharitable interpretation of her words. I'm fairly certain she didn't actually waterboard anyone and was likely referring to the American government when she said “we.” Will Kelsi and Jordan be as charitable if they read this article and find that I didn’t phrase something perfectly?   

4:29

“You found this out at the senate hearing?” - Jordan

“No, I found this out yesterday when the Senate hearing was given to me…it was Joel B. Zivot” - Kelsi

This is a textbook example of confirmation bias—the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and remember information in a way that confirms or supports one’s existing beliefs or values. Kelsi clearly opposes MAiD, so when she came across the Canadian Senate Standing Committee report that aligned with her views, she seems to have accepted it without question and stopped seeking further information. She clearly didn’t attempt to verify what Dr. Zivot said to the committee because it already fit with what she wanted to believe. This alone should make anyone sceptical of anything Kelsi says on this topic.  

4:58

“What’s been happening is, that case I was telling you about. Fraser Health is withholding the families they can’t see her autopsy…they won’t give access, the police have tried to get this…they will not give it to the family… Fraser Health is like literally lying and holding information back.” - Kelsi

I'm unclear on the case she's referring to, as it's not mentioned in this video. Perhaps Jordan edited that section out (hopefully for patient privacy). Regardless, privacy laws strictly regulate who can access an individual's medical records, and the right to confidentiality continues even after death. If someone is unable to obtain the medical records after a person’s death, it could be because the deceased did not grant them access beforehand or they are not designated as authorised to access that information posthumously. Confidentiality is a cornerstone of healthcare. 

5:21

“So what’s wild about this…if you take MAiD orally it takes between 30 minutes to 24 hours. 24 hours of active drowning while you are under a paralytic. So the autopsies are showing that you actually drown to death, and you’re waterboarded to death within your own body and you can’t move or do anything about it”. - Kelsi 

First, the American executions were carried out by injection, but Kelsi is discussing oral medication for MAiD, once again mistakenly conflating the effects of one drug with another. Not only are the MAiD IV and oral medications entirely different, they are also administered via different routes (injection vs swallowing). Just as dose and concentration are important, so is the route of administration. For example, lidocaine injected under the skin to numb an area for stitches is relatively safe, but IV lidocaine must be administered with extreme care due to the high risk of serious adverse effects.    

Second, Kelsi once again demonstrates a misunderstanding of the MAiD procedure. There is indeed an option for oral medication for those who prefer not to receive the medication via IV, but this method is exceedingly rare. In 2020, out of the 7,595 MAiD cases across Canada, only 7 involved the self-administration of oral medication—representing a mere 0.09% of cases.

When a person chooses the oral route for MAiD, the procedure includes an IV backup. The patient must agree that if they have not died within a set time—usually no longer than 60 minutes—the provider will switch to IV administration, which typically takes between 5-10 minutes. No MAiD provider waits anywhere near the 24 hours that Kelsi suggests. 

Moreover, the medication Kelsi refers to is not part of the MAiD protocol in Canada, and no paralytic is used in the oral medication process. Therefore, if someone were in distress as Kelsi suggests (which they would not be under this protocol), there is no paralytic preventing them from communicate that. 

5:32

“And that is how Dying with Dignity and the Canadian Government has disguised MAiD while they are offering it to Canadian veterans instead of treatment so they don’t have to pay for their pensions so they don’t have to pay for their health care”. - Kelsi

There’s a lot to unpack here. I'm not sure why she brought up Dying with Dignity in this context, but it seems she’s referencing reports about a Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) case worker who seems to have offered MAiD to several veterans. I agree with Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence's statement that this is “appalling.” No one should be “offered” MAiD; however, a patient can't make an informed decision about their health care unless they are informed of all available and appropriate options. Navigating this delicate balance is crucial.

Health Canada has published a Model Practice Standards for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) document, along with Advice to the Profession: Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), which provides guidance on when it might be appropriate to bring up the topic of MAiD with a patient. Generally, if a healthcare provider is discussing a patient’s goals of care or end-of-life plans, it might be appropriate to bring up MAiD. With reference to physicians, the Advice to the Profession document states:

“As in all situations of clinical care, practitioners have a responsibility to explore patients' values and discuss their goals for care. Practitioners should always provide information about treatment options and services that are appropriate to the patient's condition, in light of these values and goals of care. If a practitioner has determined that MAID is consistent with a patient's values and goals of care and has good reason to believe that the person might be eligible to receive MAID, the practitioner must inform the patient about MAID…The timing of initiating a conversation about MAID should be determined by the practitioner, using their professional judgement, and should be undertaken with care, skill, and sensitivity.”

It's important to note that it remains a criminal offense to counsel a patient to die by suicide, where “counsel” means to induce, persuade, or convince. Therefore, these conversations must be conducted with utmost care, skill, and sensitivity, and only when it is both clinically and ethically appropriate.

Without knowing the specific details, it seems likely that the VAC case worker failed to assess whether discussing MAiD was clinically and ethically appropriate, and may not have handled the conversation with the required care, skill, and sensitivity—I would also question whether a VAC case worker should be bring up MAiD in any context. However, even if veterans felt pressured to request MAiD, the subsequent assessment process would have found them ineligible. Assessors across the country are required to ensure that MAiD requests are made voluntarily and without external pressure, and they must specifically indicate how they determined the voluntariness of the request and the absence of external pressure.

This isn’t to downplay the very real trauma and harm that can be caused by inappropriately suggesting MAiD, but it’s important to note that no one would received MAiD because it was inappropriately suggested by anyone.          

7:26

“This is one of my favourite ones, I love this one cause most people don’t know this. So in 2021, they had a gross reduction in health care [spending] of 109.2 million dollars. When they did MAiD, they saved another, they cut out another 22 million. So by the end of it all, in that year the health care system just from doing MAiD instead of actually giving people palliative care, [saved] 86.9 million alone, that’s just one year without the spike.” - Kelsi

This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how MAiD became legal in Canada and how healthcare is funded in this country. Kelsi seems to suggest that the federal government promotes MAiD as a cost-saving measure, which is simply not true for several reasons:

1. Legal Basis for MAiD: The legalisation of MAiD was not a discretionary decision by the federal government, but rather a obligation imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter v Canada case. The court found that:

“the laws prohibiting physician-assisted dying interfere with the liberty and security of the person of individuals who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. They interfere with liberty by constraining the ability of such individuals to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care, and with security of the person by leaving such individuals to endure intolerable suffering. The Court also held that the laws deprive some people of life by forcing them to take their own lives prematurely for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached a point where their suffering was intolerable”.

The federal government was thus compelled to enact legislation that would permit MAiD, incorporating “properly designed and administered safeguards [to] protect vulnerable people from abuse and error”. If a different government was in power, they would have been forced to do the same thing.

2. Healthcare Funding: The report from which Kelsi cites the "$109.0 million" figure does mention a reduction in healthcare spending; however, it clarifies that this reduction is negligible, amounting to just 0.08% of provincial healthcare budgets. Additionally, while the criminal code, where MAiD laws are written, is under federal jurisdiction, healthcare delivery itself is a provincial responsibility. Therefore, any federal cost savings are minimal and not a motivation for the legislation.

3. Role of Hospice Care: It’s important to recognize that hospice care also saves the healthcare system money by providing a less expensive alternative to curative treatments in acute care settings. If cost savings were causing an ethical concern, one could argue that hospice care should be banned, which is clearly not a reasonable stance. Instead, both MAiD and hospice care are about respecting individual autonomy and allowing people to choose how they wish to die.

4. Palliative Care and MAiD: The claim that the government is using MAiD to avoid funding palliative care is unfounded. In fact, offering palliative care is a mandatory part of the MAiD assessment process, where assessors have a legal obligation to ensure that patients have been offered and have reasonably considered all available means to relieve their suffering, including palliative care. Statistics show that around 78% of individuals requesting MAiD receive palliative care, with an additional 10% having access to palliative care but choosing to refuse it. This compares to 58% of all Canadians who died in 2021 having accessed palliative care. This indicates that access to palliative care is integral to the practice of MAiD, rather than being sidelined by it​.

For a deeper exploration of this issue, Clinical Ethicist

Eric Mathison

provides an excellent analysis in his article Does MAiD Create Perverse Incentives.               

7:54

“In 2021 it was 10,500, in 2022 it was 13,000, and there’s been a 30% increase since then and a high rate is happening in British Columbia.” - Kelsi 

These numbers for MAiD are indeed accurate, (actually 10,092 and 13,241 in 2021 and 2022 respectively) and this data can be verified through Health Canada's Annual Reports on Medical Assistance in Dying, which are available for the years 2019 to 2022. However, the claim of a “30% increase since then” raises questions, as this information is not currently available. Health Canada is the only organisation with access to these numbers, and they release this data in their annual reports. The report for 2023 is expected closer to the end of 2024 or early 2025, so it’s unclear how Kelsi could have access to this information.

She may be referencing the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Statistical Report 2023 by the Government of British Columbia, which has released MAiD statistics for BC. However, there were 2,515 MAiD deaths in BC in 2022, and 2,767 MAiD deaths in BC in 2023—an increase of 10%, not the 30% that Kelsi claims. I would be interested to know where Kelsi is getting this information, but she doesn’t seem to put much effort into referencing her claims, which is just another reason to be skeptical of what she is saying.     

It is likely that the number of MAiD cases will increase in 2023—especially as awareness and acceptance of MAiD grows—but the relevant question isn’t whether the numbers are increasing, but whether the number of people accessing MAiD is appropriate based on the eligibility criteria. Again,

Eric Mathison

offers a thorough exploration of this issue, discussing whether an increase in MAiD cases necessarily reflects a problem or if it aligns with the intended purpose of providing an option for those who meet the strict criteria.          

8:40

“We are killing innocent people, and children are on the chopping block..if we didn’t stop that bill by the 17th…a 17-year-old could walk into the hospital and say they want to die by MAiD and guess what? If you tried to stop it as a parent you will be arrested.” - Kelsi

This is another example of a misunderstanding regarding the legislation in question. The bill Kelsi is referring to is actually Bill C-39, which extended the exclusion of individuals whose sole diagnosis was a mental disorder from accessing MAiD (people with a sole diagnosis of a mental disorder will not be able to access MAiD until March 17, 2027). Importantly, this bill had nothing to do with allowing MAiD for minors, and there is no legislation currently in place or proposed that would permit MAiD for minors.

It seems Kelsi may have misunderstood or misread information about this bill. This highlights the importance of thoroughly checking sources and ensuring accuracy before drawing conclusions or sharing information. It's a good reminder for all of us to verify facts, especially on sensitive issues like MAiD, to avoid spreading misinformation.   

9:00

“I’m telling you right now, this has never been talked about, this part right here, where it is drowning to death…” - Kelsi

No one else is mentioning it except for Kelsi because it's not occurring, and there's no basis to even consider that it could be happening. Refer to the start of this article for more information.

10:02

“And you just found out about this?” - Jordan

“Yesterday” - Kelsi

Another clear example of confirmation bias. Kelsi seems to have a strong opinion against MAiD, and if she believes that the government is offering it to veterans like herself, it’s understandable why she might feel that way. However, she has accepted something that aligns with her belief that MAiD is wrong without verifying whether it’s true. This is a classic case of confirmation bias, where someone is inclined to believe information that supports their existing views, without critically assessing its accuracy.

10:06

“I found out because there was an event in South Surrey [BC]...my girlfriend…her mother was at, and she goes, Kelsi, one of the Delta Hospice centres is being shut down because they refuse to do MAiD” - Kelsi

It sounds like Kelsi might be referencing the situation with the Delta Hospice Society in Delta, British Columbia, which operated the Irene Thomas Hospice with funding from Fraser Health Authority. The society faced funding cuts in 2021 because they refused to allow MAiD at the Hospice, with its daily operations subsequently taken over by Fraser Health. The Irene Thomas Hospice in Delta continues to operate under Fraser Health.

In British Columbia, some religious healthcare facilities have the option to not allow MAiD based on a Master Agreement between the Province of BC and The Denominational Health Care Facilities Association, which the Delta Hospice Society is not a part of.

Publicly funded religious facilities, like St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, can legally refuse to offer MAiD. However, publicly funded non-religious healthcare organisations, such as the Delta Hospice Society, are legally required to provide access to MAiD services.

10:30

“They are already doing it and they’ve been doing it and we have audio recordings of veterans. We have the minister of veterans affairs lying to Mercedes Stevenson on the West Block saying it was one veteran when we have multiple veterans, multiple case managers, audio recordings and written testimonies. So are we just ok with everyone lying now?” - Kelsi

I have already addressed the incident with the veterans being offered MAiD above. But I just wanted to comment that, no, we are not OK with everyone lying now.    

11:00   

“All I ask is stop lying. - Kelsi 

Finally, it seems we agree on something.