Aside from a glib "The process has not been perfect" the article does not really grapple with some of the serious problems surrounding MAID. Look at the case of WV v MV, 2024 ABKB 174 https://canlii.ca/t/k3mq5 . MV was a 27 year old woman with autism and ADHD. A doctor noted she was "vague with the course of symptoms” (including things like a "propensity for tripping and falling", "neck pain" and "generalized weakness").
She applied for MAID, and didn't get it because it was 1-1 (only one doctor said yes). She applied again and still didn't get it, 1-1. Then the doctor from the first application was allowed to break the tie.
It's unfortunate that Kristin writes off those who want to limit Canada's MAID regime (which makes up a higher percentage of total deaths than any other country on Earth and is growing by the year) as "people who have never gone through the process [and] people whose religious convictions seem to make them believe people should live in pain rather than peace."
The Line should seek out a contributor to argue in support of the UCP's legislation.
It's not the state's business. Should be between a person and their doctor. No one else. If people are against it fine - then don't seek MAID. It's your life and your death.
What if you can't find a doctor willing to kill you? Let's say all the doctors feel bound by the Hippocratic Oath which says they can't kill their patients, even if the law says they can? I know that's not how at least a few members of the profession think now -- there are several doctors who are enthusiastic public self-promoters of euthanasia -- but what happens if they retire or lose enthusiasm and find it hard to recruit more euthanasiologists into the movement? What then? If doctors and patients are free to contract to kill as you say they should be, both parties to the contract have to be free to not enter the contract. A doctor can't kill you without the consent of *both* of you.
The euthanasia law doesn't really confer a "right to die" on people, even though the Supreme Court framed it that way in discovering such a right in the Charter. What it does is exempt *doctors* from the two sections of the Criminal Code that prohibit murder and assisted suicide. It doesn't compel doctors to honour a right to die by killing whoever asks them to. So patients don't have any more rights than they did before the Supreme Court ruling.
The provincial medical regulators ("Colleges") who regulate doctors on behalf of the state take the view that a doctor *must* kill a patient who asks, or make an effective referral to one who will. But if no one will, it seems the first doctor asked must do it himself. So it's not a matter "between patient and doctor, no one else." Someone else representing the state becomes involved not in punishing the doctor for killing, but punishing him if he doesn't.
That is hyperbole but you do raise a good point. Teenagers contemplating a career in medicine in Canada will have to factor in not only the long hours and the other demanding downsides but also the reality that they will in principle be forced to kill a patient who demands to be killed. If the patient won't take No for an answer, the doc will lose the licence to practise she devoted a decade of her young life working toward, and can't easily make a living doing something else. (If the now-ex-doctor is a man, he can't just marry someone better off to support him.) If a kid is constitutionally opposed to that idea, whether from religious conviction or a strict reading of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors used to take, he won't be able to apply. So all the ones who do apply will be the ones who, as you imply, are OK with killing if no one else can be inveigled into doing it.
But Canadians seem to want this, so why should we care?, I suppose.
I think we'd prefer that to happen under the law and a set of guidelines than for example, by Dr. Shipman (UK) style.
In all seriousness, there will not be a requirement whereby a doctor will lose their license by refusing. Refusal to participate can and will fall under the usual laws regarding ethical, religious or moral objections (like abortion). No doctor will be compelled to euthanize someone. There's so much hyperbole over and above the reasonable discussion that a subject like this requires.
Care to explain why it isn’t the state’s business? A death has the same consequences whether or not it’s self-inflicted, and we generally try to ban killing without good cause (including even unintentional killing, via criminal negligence). If the purpose of the state is to serve human beings, and the purpose of human beings is to do good / prevent evil, why shouldn’t the state crush evil, insofar as it does not force the state to commit some greater evil? And if life has value, is it not evil to die voluntarily? Of course, letting yourself suffer agony in a state of terminal illness can be a greater evil than suicide, and one may attempt to calculate when that is the case. But, given that your calculation will have consequences for the rest of us, do we not have a good reason to double check your math?
The reason why we have constitutional limits on government is so that we don’t have to resort to civil war to protect our basic freedom every time the opposite party wins. A liberalized suicide regime is not necessary for stability or prosperity or human flourishing. Every other right/freedom we have enshrined serves some sort of benefit upon its enjoyer, but death gives you nothing, in all but the worst cases. We won’t have a chance of fighting the world’s tragedies if everyone scampers away into the abyss of death. And even if one accepts freedom to be paramount, should it not be noted that death is the ultimate deprivation of freedom, since you cannot will or do anything once you expire? Human civilization built the environment that allowed you to achieve everything you have. We let you learn in our schools, drive on our roads, call our police and firemen, and reside within our secure(ish) borders. We do not want our investment to go to waste. Your parents, of course, sacrificed a whole lot for you. You owe it to them, and to the rest of us, to keep fighting and hoping and dreaming and loving, even if there is some pain involved in carrying on. If we did not want you to live, we would pull the plug whether you like it or not.
If you think these people are correct in their belief that staying alive isn’t worth the cost because of their pain, drop the language of aUtOnOMY and say it outright - God knows, a well-designed private healthcare system would probably be better than our existing shitshow. I firmly believe that if you want to keep living into deep old age, then you should have saved up your own money for it, or at least have a kid or friend who loves you enough to foot the bill. Perhaps more joy and hope and beauty would exist if we spent our money raising more/better kids, instead of keeping half-dead husks stumbling along at the cost of a fortune every six months. It’s an interesting question that I hope many are researching. But it is does not stand to reason that everybody who thinks “I should die“ is right about that. People can be delusional, people can be wrong, and when it’s a matter of life and death, the stakes are too high for us to let that insanity take its bloody impact. I do not doubt that I, too, will fall into ill health and despair someday. I, too, might become entranced by death’s siren song. And I hope the state is empathetic and clearheaded enough to slap me in the face and tell me to get over it, even if my loved ones are too afraid of me to speak up.
If you want to argue that any regulation of doctors whatsoever should be off limits, I'm willing to hear it. Until then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that doctors shouldn't be in the habit of killing people on purpose. Nobody is stopping people from killing themselves.
It shouldn't be, but it is because the state represents the people. Without this important intervention, no doctor would risk assisting for fear of prosecution. It's clear from many replies here that some people consider assistance as murder and are unable to see the distinction.
Assisting a suicide is a separate crime under the Criminal Code. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in the same ruling as for murder. The MAiD law amended that section to exempt doctors from being charged with assisted suicide, just as it amended the murder law to exempt doctors doing active deliberate killing.
Let's be clear: Most euthanasia in Canada is not assisted suicide, where the doctor prescribes a lethal dose of something and then looks the other way while the patient takes it. It's not popular with patients because they would have to lift their hand and take the drug themselves. Also they might throw up and then the drug wouldn't work (obviously). Rather, most is lethal injection by doctors. The patient is completely passive, and plays no role except to demand it, then consent to it. Without the change in the law, that would be (and always was) first-degree murder.
I think someone is making up a tall tale there. That's not how it works, not in Canada. Nurses don't give the drugs. The Criminal Code says it's murder if anyone but a doctor does it, and there is only one doctor involved in the act. A nurse who was ambivalent or opposed to helping at euthanasia, such as to insert the intravenous line, could simply decline to participate.
My friend may not be clear on the difference between nurses and nurse practitioners. But he didn't approach his father's death with the light-hearted attitude one would expect if he were pranking me.
Medical assistance in dying: Overview - Canada.cahttps://share.google/i3ZScuXLj9dkPJwzR
Kelsi Sheren’s Substack does an excellent job of countering these arguments. And holding up a godless totalitarian state like Quebec as an example to be followed Is beyond the pale IMO
The link is perhaps not obvious. But a nation that has no religion has none of the moral restraints which are the foundation of civilization everywhere. The legal euthanasia of adults movement along with abortion on demand earlier all originated in Quebec before spreading to the rest of Canada via a compliant Quebec controlled federal government.
Nonsense. Personal feelings are not facts. Perhaps preface your statements with "In my opinion.."?
In my own opinion, all religion is outdated and illogical in a modern secular state. IMO, it belongs to a distant superstitious past from an age of ignorance and more I hear it'\s adherents profess moral superiority the lower its value becomes.
Everything is IMO. I was probably remiss in not spelling it out. I agree with your view about most organized religion. I spent half my youth in Quebec avoiding black robes wanting to talk to me about “manly urges”. But IMO totalitarian states are not the answer either. IMO moral principles whatever their sources are essential to prevent a state from descending into savagery (or nature (red tooth and claw) if you prefer). IMO for just one current instance convincing your elderly into accepting euthanasia on the premise that Canada can’t afford palliative care while it proposes $Billions on a high speed rail between Quebec City (where most of the population can’t speak English and so has no incentive to visit a foreign to them Canada) and Ottawa/Toronto is a wonderful example of immoral gaslighting.
We treat our pets better than we treat people than people who are suffering. When you've had enough, why does someone else get to determine that "no, you haven't"? We live in a world where people can choose their death with dignity. It seems only religious fundamentalists oppose the idea. Religion is an opinion. Pain is a fact.
And, as always, there is a massive difference between " I don't like this, so I won't do it" and " I don't like this, so you can't do it".
Ah, but that costs tax dollars. A functioning healthcare system focused on prevention rather than response doesn't appear to be on the priority list of provincial governments. The staff actually providing the care are second to none.
It doesn't necessarily rely on tax dollars. I think we should be allowing people to pay separately for MRIs, surgeries, etc. But Canadians will defend our current system even if it (quite literally) kills them.
I would prefer our government provide a fully staffed, fully functional healthcare system for all, rather than one where dollars get you to the front of the pack. I think there's already far too much of that in this country. The money is there. It's just a matter of priorities.
This is three moves stacked together: facts turned into moral claims, humans treated like pets, and opponents dismissed instead of answered. It sounds strong, but it skips the argument.
I respectfully disagree. I think the argument is whether everyone should have control over the circumstances of their deaths. There seems to be a strong opinion in the religious community that "god's plan" involves a natural death. I would ask why? Why should a person be forced to suffer pain and agony, in whatever form, to comply with someones opinion? I think quality of life is an intensely personal choice, and people should be able to address it. Only the individual knows when they've had enough, and I think people should have the option to die in peace rather than die in pain. Further, that politicians feel the need to impose the opinions of their base is abhorrent when said politicians have no idea what individuals are dealing with. These are the same politicians who have merrily closed chronic care and mental health institutions in the name of fiscal prudence, while creating our current homeless crisis, and having no understanding of the implications of those decisions.
When my time comes, I hope I am able to say when I've had enough, or have those whom I trust to make care decisions make it for me. It's an opinion. I would suggest it be imposed on you. I ask the same in return.
You have said only the individual can truly know when they have had enough, and in many personal cases that is right. But it cannot be the legal standard, because the law has to protect everyone, including those whose “enough” comes from depression, isolation, feeling like a burden, or inadequate supports.
That is the real limiting principle question. If subjective “I have had enough” becomes the test for doctors ending a life, where does the line stop and who draws it? Terminal illness? Chronic disability? Mental illness? Loneliness?
Canada is already wrestling with this. MAID now makes up 5.1 percent of all deaths (16,499 cases in 2024), with non-terminal Track 2 cases growing. The federal government has delayed expanding it to mental illness alone until 2027, twice, precisely because the system is not ready and risks to the vulnerable are real.
Autonomy matters, but no society treats it as unlimited. So what bright line are we unwilling to cross, even when suffering is compelling?
I think every situation is unique. That, to me, means the one-size-fits-all of a government directive will be useless. The reality is that those same governments have gutted supports for many people in dire need of them, creating that hopelessness that makes death appear the best possible outcome.
I really don't care what percentage of deaths in Canada are from MAID. I believe them to be the choice of the individual, and even if you don't agree, respected. I would far prefer someone who wants to die to have that wish facilitated peacefully, than have them, for example, step in front of a train and destroy the life of another to accomplish their wish.
So, because I don't believe the government(or any person in it) is qualified in any way to render an opinion, I will trust the person and their physician to make the best possible decision based on the unique circumstances.
I understand the instinct to trust individual cases and the desire to prevent traumatic suicides. But saying “every situation is unique” and that government has no business setting rules simply defaults to pure individual autonomy with no guardrails.
Consider opioid prescribing. A patient says they’re in enough pain to need opioids. Only they truly know their suffering. We still have prescribing standards, not because we don’t trust patients, but because “the patient says so plus the doctor agrees” effectively became the standard for a time, and it produced a documented catastrophe… widespread overprescribing, addiction, and tens of thousands of deaths.
Once MAID is legal, it stops being purely private. It becomes a system. Doctors are authorized to end lives, and patients come to expect “I’ve had enough” as a legitimate option.
Preventing someone from stepping in front of a train is not the same as authorizing death as a medical solution to suffering.
If autonomy and “unique circumstances” are the only standard, where does it actually stop? Depression? Feeling like a burden? Loneliness? Inadequate supports?
Autonomy matters. But no society treats it as unlimited.
So what limit are we unwilling to cross, even when the suffering is compelling?
I think the government did set the guardrails with the following
"have a serious illness, disease or disability
be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable"
From that point, it falls to the doctor to evaluate the merit of the complaint. I think it is somewhat ironic that you mention opioids, as my guess is that many people have used them purposely to complete their own MAID.
You can't prevent someone from stepping in front of a train if that's how far they've fallen. And since we've taken away so many of the supports to help people before they get to that point, it's almost logical that they see death as the only way out.
As to your last question, I don't have the answer. I leave that in the hands of medical professionals who have a far greater understanding. If the goal of MAID is to alleviate human suffering, which I believe it is, then I will trust in the judgment of those who will prescribe it as the final option. Having decided that death is an option, the government should step back and leave that decision to people who know what they're talking about.
Could not disagree more strongly. These actions simply put MAID as it was initially intended. Having paid into the health care system for more than half a century, I expect it to work with me as best we both can to extend my life, not to save the bureaucracy money and quicken it’s conclusion.
Exactly. It's silly to offer MAID for homelessness, sadness, poverty. The system is typically Canadian. Take something that has legit merit and make it an unrecognizable FUBAR system.
At no point did it have merit. Doctors would always hasten the deaths of terminally ill people in pain, and none was ever prosecuted, prior to maid becoming a political issue. The demand for maid was simply because some people wanted public affirmation, rather than having it happen quietly.
If it is going to be a cost-based system, perhaps they could formalize it. If the net present cost of treating what ails you less what you can afford to pay for yourself exceeds a certain threshold, then the state can urge euthanasia. But include prisoners, hotel immigrants and other heavy burden groups. Of course, people who promise to vote for the incumbent party are exempt.
The opening sentence (aka: the premise) is incorrect.
This Bill does not roll back MAID protections to a pre-MAID condition, rather it takes us back to the same conditions for MAID which were in effect in 2021.
The UPC is not at all alone in noticing that our federal government has taken a good thing (MAID for the terminally ill) and taken it too far, opening it to almost anyone,
The rate at which MAID deaths have grown is a cautionary tale, and completely unique to Canada.
The jurisdictions in Europe who pioneered these laws have had no explosive growth of this sort, because they kept strict limits on who and what situations these laws pertain to.
The same has been experienced in States such as Oregon and California - both progressive paradises one would suspect of "leading the way" on such a file - but there too, strict guidelines have remained in place.
It's ONLY in Canada that this law, once introduced, has seemed to gather speed as it rolls downhill.
Ten years ago, MAID was illegal.
We are now at the place where 1 in 20 Canadian deaths happen due to MAID.
It's too much.
Smith was correct to tap the brakes and draw a line in the sand.
We can quibble about exactly where the line should be drawn, but we NEED a line.
We are now at the place where 1 in 20 Canadian deaths happen due to MAID.
It's too much.
END QUOTE
If a proper review of MAID were undertaken, and it found that people’s lives were being ended when efficacious treatments could have granted them years of healthy living, perhaps your position would be tenable.
But what has happened instead?
The UCP government has “hopped on to” yet another hot button social issue in order to juice up partisan strife, for blatantly obvious political reasons.
It galls me that the number of MAID deaths are being highlighted as ‘too high’ or ‘growing at a fast rate’. These people would have died ANYHOW. Just suffered much longer. I am so grateful my mom had the choice in 2019. It was hers to make and eased her final days.
Agreed. The information available to everyone suggests that the number of requests (annual rate of growth %) is not growing but shrinking from a high of around 37% annually 2019-2020 to about 7% 2023-2024. Of course the majority are people who are already terminal. in 2024 there were 22535 requests and of those 16499 received MAID. over 4000 died of other causes before receipt. Only 692 withdrew the request.
Good article on an important matter. I’ve just read all the other comments, and find that I do not agree with most of them. We should all have the right to choose our own destiny, particularly if we are suffering. Medical professionals have enough to do without chasing down innocent people and urging them to end their lives prematurely. Why are people so threatened by MAID? I suspect that it is only because they like to tell others what to do, to moralize. I can’t help but think that it is hypocrisy in its purest form. When you tell someone how to live or die, it is because it makes you feel righteous, somehow. At the end of the day, you will not be there to share the sick person’s pain, neither will you be there to ease their other burdens, such as financial difficulties. Please do not say that “we need more social supports.” Of course we do, but it’s not going to happen anywhere fast enough to help these people—and social supports are not important when one is in constant pain. The same principle applies for those people who object to abortions at any cost. Will they be there to raise the child after the fact? I think not. Considering how many people are dying in vehicular accidents, drug abuse, or in horrendous wars, perhaps we should feel blessed that we live in a civilized country which actually lets people make decisions for themselves. Also, don’t confuse religion with common sense.
Saying “we should all have the right to choose our destiny” isn’t an argument. It’s a moral starting point. The whole debate is whether autonomy should override certain limits, not whether autonomy exists.
You also reduce disagreement to motive. Saying opponents just want to “moralize” avoids engaging the actual concern, which is about what happens when assisted death becomes a normal option. Policies shape expectations, not just individual choices.
And pointing to suffering, while real, doesn’t settle the question. The issue is not whether suffering exists, but whether it justifies removing a boundary that has historically been treated as non-negotiable.
If autonomy is the highest good, then no limit holds. That’s the real claim being made here, but it’s never actually defended.
UCP are masters of creating issues and crisis to divert from the most pressing issue. Why fix things that aren’t broken to divert from what Albertans really need. Housing not citizenship on licences, health care not scandle in procurement, education reasources not book burning, need I go on.
We’re told this is about autonomy. But autonomy only works inside limits.
Every society draws lines. Things it refuses to normalize, even when suffering makes exceptions feel humane. One of the deepest has been this. Doctors do not intentionally end a human life.
What is changing is not just policy. It is the elevation of autonomy to the highest good. The idea that if suffering is great enough, individual choice overrides any shared limit.
Raworth is right about one thing. Diseases like ALS or dementia can create a kind of living hell. Loss of control, dignity, and agency. Anyone who has seen that knows this is not abstract.
But that is exactly why the line matters.
A DNR refuses treatment. An advance MAID request authorizes active killing after capacity is gone. Once capacity is gone, consent becomes uncertain. Circumstances change. Pressure, subtle or not, enters the picture.
This is not just about individual choice. It is about what kind of boundary we are willing to keep.
If autonomy becomes the highest good, then no boundary holds. The question is no longer should this ever be done, but when is it justified. And those justifications tend to expand.
This means some people will be denied a death they would choose. That is a real cost. The question is whether removing the boundary carries a larger one.
Because once assisted death becomes a normal response to suffering, it does not stay neutral. It shapes expectations for patients, families, and medicine itself. The option to choose can quietly become the sense that one ought to.
You can support that shift. But it is not just expanding autonomy.
It is replacing a shared limit with a system where the value of continuing to live is decided case by case, and where suffering is increasingly met with the offer of death instead of the obligation to care.
Yes. Under the influence of a group who still believe in magical books in 2026. I don't care what people believe, or in which particular deity, as long as they can't influence my personal life decisions based on it. That very paternalism you mention is the historical one that supposed (then imposed) superiority over "godless savages" in the past.
I am not a fan of removing advanced directives for the terminally ill BUT I am a fan of a patient initiated conversation about MAiD. Hopefully an amendment can be made in regards to the advanced directives. I believe federally we have gone too far with MAiD when young people with mental health struggles are thinking MaiD is the solution to their struggles, not therapy and medication.
The UCP doesn't plan to remove advance directives for the terminally ill. Surrogates will still be able to consent (and refuse) treatment according to the wishes the patient expressed when capable of consenting herself. It only plans to make it clear that advance directives for euthanasia can't be acted on, which is in accord with current Canadian law. It is Quebec that is breaking Canadian law by allowing Quebec doctors to kill people on the basis of advance consent. The premise is that the patient being killed has to be able to change her mind right up to the last second before the injection. Quebec's policy would remove that safeguard that protects autonomy by right of refusal.
The decision to commit suicide is a cost-benefit analysis in the best-case scenario, yes? And it is an impulse choice in the worst case.
Both ways, MAID makes things worse.
When you can peacefully die by lethal injection with the full support of your society, the cost of suicide is relatively low, so people who don’t have it so bad will commit suicide. The system will kill people who have good reasons to live. If you are really so terminally ill, in such horrid agony, that you can get nothing out of your remaining months, then you will kill yourself with or without MAID.
People who want to die should be forced to stare down the barrel of a shotgun. They should feel the coldness of the void when they look 30 stories down. They should be forced to worry about whether or not they’ll end up breaking their legs instead of dying. They should have the chance to tear a hole in the bag as they suffocate, or paddle for the shore if they begin to regret drowning themselves. Some of my best friends have had these experiences, and only turned away at the last moment. If all they had to do was sign a form, perhaps they would not be here today. Death is bad; it is only warranted in the most horrific cases of suffering. It should be ugly, gory, socially shameful, and risky, not sanitized, celebrated, and safe. It is this terror that stops healthy people from throwing their lives away at every inconvenience. MAID, perhaps, deals with cases closer to the edge, but in its current state it drags far too many valuable, beautiful lives into the abyss. Maybe some people are better off dead, but I do not think our society should err on the side of suicide.
Horrible, uncaring and selfish. I don't know if it's religion or your politics that have made you value your own feelings above others, in fact, I don't care to know. Your callous statement is why we need MAID and why people like you should never be allowed to create policy for people beyond your limited range of perception.
I take it you've never talked to disabled people who have serious concerns about the direction of this "policy." That's fine, but don't go accusing others of being uncaring and selfish just because you fail to see the whole picture.
Well said. I had a friend who committed suicide by hanging over 25 years ago. I often wonder if she'd had a last-minute change of heart and it was too late. As heartbreaking as it was to lose her in such a way, it would have been unbearably sad to have had the state approve assisted suicide for postpartum depression.
What if it's similar for a person with Alzheimer's? We can't assume to know what is going on in their mind. Wasn't there a case recently in which the wife had changed her mind about MAiD and the husband went through with the MAiD process on her behalf anyway?
I also wonder of the connection between MAiD and organ harvesting. They say there is no relation, but governments have lied to us before. In any case, I rescinded permission for them to use my organs after death. It's basically my only way of protesting.
In theory, I was fine with MAiD in certain circumstances, but my government has changed my mind.
We know from research into incredibly lucky survivors of attempted suicide that should have worked that they invariably regretted the decision the moment it became irreversible (or so they thought but for the intervention of Providence or whatever you believe.) I'm not talking about people who took four Xanax and then called 911. I'm talking about people who shot themselves in the head or jumped off the Golden Gate bridge and against all odds survived.
Most (90%) people who were apprehended by the California Highway Patrol in the act of climbing the parapet on the Golden Gate bridge -- it now has a suicide prevention net -- were proven conclusively to be still alive decades later in one famous study. So there is an element of a one-time impulse in suicidal behaviour. Thwart the attempt and the desire seems to melt away, in most if not all.
I'm sorry you tie organ donation to euthanasia. That's a conspiracy theory. Please re-consider. The government doesn't harvest organs. Doctors do. Almost all organs for transplant come from previously healthy people who are now brain-dead on life support that is keeping their hearts beating. The circumstances of euthanasia don't produce usable organs because once the heart stops beating after the lethal injection, the organs deteriorate so quickly that they can't be used in transplant. If you are concerned about the government taking your organs without your consent, then you shouldn't drive a motorcycle because that's who most of the organ donors are.
Technology marches on, I guess. But he consented to both euthanasia and organ donation, so what's the big deal? Are you saying that euthanasia should be a disqualification to organ donation?
I don't buy the argument that euthanasia should be the person's own sole decision because it requires the participation of someone else to do the killing. But I don't see what organ donation has to do with anything, unless you are somehow hostile or suspicious about the idea of organ donation anyway and would like to put more barriers in front of doing it (like excluding euthanasia) so fewer organs get donated. Recipients can use the organs that dead people can't, so this sounds spiteful to me. But you do you.
I’m saying we’re heading into slippery slope lawlessness. You just accused me of buying into conspiracy theories earlier, so I’m just saying what’s currently going on. I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised to see people getting a pressured into dying so that they could donate organs. And seriously, is our healthcare so bad we can’t find a cure for insomnia? But I see how we’re heading down this slippery slope. Some people, like you, think this is fine.
I might reconsider in the future but not because of your post (no offence 🤣). I have long thought of donating my entire cadaver to science, but that's not possible unless you consent to organ donation as well.
The Canadian government is offside from the rest of the developed world on MAID. The Alberta new law is consistent with the rest of the developed world.
Please read the comments of the English and Scottish Parliaments that refused a vote on MAID expansion due to horror of what is happening in Canada. Also check the comments from an ever wider lot of people from European countries that have had MAID for longer than Canada.
I don’t object to the bill. People’s ideas about death change as they go through the process, and a year is already a long runway where someone could change their mind.
The focus is always on worst case scenarios in arguing against further controls, but there are worse case scenarios on the other side too - being subjected to MAID when you no longer want it is murder, clothed in state approval. And I did hear of a case where that happened just in the last few months.
I had watched a family member with a long illness suffer in the years leading up to death, and MAID was not something considered. I’ve also seen people approved for MAID delay it and then die on their own before the date arrives.
MAID treats death like something we should have the right to control but there is something to be said for going through the natural stages of dying. And I still have this opinion after watching a family member die from Alzheimer’s and another from a protracted cancer battle that removed the ability to communicate verbally or care for self.
Is it uncomfortable to watch someone go through that? Yes. Are we the ones who should decide whether someone else lives or dies? No.
State sanctioned murder is still murder. What bugs me the most about MAID is that if you killed the person to alleviate their suffering and because they’d begged you to, you’d go to jail for murder if it was caught. But if it’s state approved, it’s ok. Same issue I have with adding mental health reasons in - if someone tries to kill themself they will be forcibly hospitalized in a psychiatric ward until they’re no longer a threat to themselves. But if a state approves it, it’s going to suddenly be ok? Meaning a suicidal person isn’t allowed to choose their own timing of dying if others have hope in their recovery, but if doctors agree things are hopeless then the state will have those same doctors end the life? Considering the number of young people in the category, one could consider this expansion to be closer to eugenics than mercy killing.
What if MAID was called a eugenics program? Would people still support it? I’m guessing not.
"What bugs me the most about MAID is that if you killed the person to alleviate their suffering and because they’d begged you to, you’d go to jail for murder if it was caught. But if it’s state approved, it’s ok."
This is the entire reasoning behind compassionate euthanisia- MAID. Obviously you may be comfortable with someone else suffering and feel that suffering is necessary because it's "natural" and this is why although you have an opinion, this can't be left to individuals to decide and is handed over the state to debate and enact in law.
Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right and that includes the right to die. The question, however, is not do you have the right to choose to die, but rather when and under what conditions, the state should assist you in dying. Finding the correct balance regarding when the state should assist you in dying is difficult. The interests of the state are not the same as your interests. I agree that the UCP bill, just like the law proposed by the Liberals, fails to find that balance.
Why don't I have the right to die by gunshot or by overdosing on fentanyl? The government bans guns and administers naloxone to prevent overdoses. Weird how they've glommed on to MAiD, though
Aside from a glib "The process has not been perfect" the article does not really grapple with some of the serious problems surrounding MAID. Look at the case of WV v MV, 2024 ABKB 174 https://canlii.ca/t/k3mq5 . MV was a 27 year old woman with autism and ADHD. A doctor noted she was "vague with the course of symptoms” (including things like a "propensity for tripping and falling", "neck pain" and "generalized weakness").
She applied for MAID, and didn't get it because it was 1-1 (only one doctor said yes). She applied again and still didn't get it, 1-1. Then the doctor from the first application was allowed to break the tie.
This issue deserves better then this article.
It's unfortunate that Kristin writes off those who want to limit Canada's MAID regime (which makes up a higher percentage of total deaths than any other country on Earth and is growing by the year) as "people who have never gone through the process [and] people whose religious convictions seem to make them believe people should live in pain rather than peace."
The Line should seek out a contributor to argue in support of the UCP's legislation.
It's not the state's business. Should be between a person and their doctor. No one else. If people are against it fine - then don't seek MAID. It's your life and your death.
Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would prevent any MAID restrictions or safeguards whatsoever.
What if you can't find a doctor willing to kill you? Let's say all the doctors feel bound by the Hippocratic Oath which says they can't kill their patients, even if the law says they can? I know that's not how at least a few members of the profession think now -- there are several doctors who are enthusiastic public self-promoters of euthanasia -- but what happens if they retire or lose enthusiasm and find it hard to recruit more euthanasiologists into the movement? What then? If doctors and patients are free to contract to kill as you say they should be, both parties to the contract have to be free to not enter the contract. A doctor can't kill you without the consent of *both* of you.
The euthanasia law doesn't really confer a "right to die" on people, even though the Supreme Court framed it that way in discovering such a right in the Charter. What it does is exempt *doctors* from the two sections of the Criminal Code that prohibit murder and assisted suicide. It doesn't compel doctors to honour a right to die by killing whoever asks them to. So patients don't have any more rights than they did before the Supreme Court ruling.
The provincial medical regulators ("Colleges") who regulate doctors on behalf of the state take the view that a doctor *must* kill a patient who asks, or make an effective referral to one who will. But if no one will, it seems the first doctor asked must do it himself. So it's not a matter "between patient and doctor, no one else." Someone else representing the state becomes involved not in punishing the doctor for killing, but punishing him if he doesn't.
This won't be a huge problem, because highly intelligent serial killers will go to med school now that it is a licence to kill.
That is hyperbole but you do raise a good point. Teenagers contemplating a career in medicine in Canada will have to factor in not only the long hours and the other demanding downsides but also the reality that they will in principle be forced to kill a patient who demands to be killed. If the patient won't take No for an answer, the doc will lose the licence to practise she devoted a decade of her young life working toward, and can't easily make a living doing something else. (If the now-ex-doctor is a man, he can't just marry someone better off to support him.) If a kid is constitutionally opposed to that idea, whether from religious conviction or a strict reading of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors used to take, he won't be able to apply. So all the ones who do apply will be the ones who, as you imply, are OK with killing if no one else can be inveigled into doing it.
But Canadians seem to want this, so why should we care?, I suppose.
I'm mostly kidding, but it does worry me that there are "doctors" in Canada who have personally killed hundreds of people on purpose. That's not good.
I think we'd prefer that to happen under the law and a set of guidelines than for example, by Dr. Shipman (UK) style.
In all seriousness, there will not be a requirement whereby a doctor will lose their license by refusing. Refusal to participate can and will fall under the usual laws regarding ethical, religious or moral objections (like abortion). No doctor will be compelled to euthanize someone. There's so much hyperbole over and above the reasonable discussion that a subject like this requires.
Care to explain why it isn’t the state’s business? A death has the same consequences whether or not it’s self-inflicted, and we generally try to ban killing without good cause (including even unintentional killing, via criminal negligence). If the purpose of the state is to serve human beings, and the purpose of human beings is to do good / prevent evil, why shouldn’t the state crush evil, insofar as it does not force the state to commit some greater evil? And if life has value, is it not evil to die voluntarily? Of course, letting yourself suffer agony in a state of terminal illness can be a greater evil than suicide, and one may attempt to calculate when that is the case. But, given that your calculation will have consequences for the rest of us, do we not have a good reason to double check your math?
The reason why we have constitutional limits on government is so that we don’t have to resort to civil war to protect our basic freedom every time the opposite party wins. A liberalized suicide regime is not necessary for stability or prosperity or human flourishing. Every other right/freedom we have enshrined serves some sort of benefit upon its enjoyer, but death gives you nothing, in all but the worst cases. We won’t have a chance of fighting the world’s tragedies if everyone scampers away into the abyss of death. And even if one accepts freedom to be paramount, should it not be noted that death is the ultimate deprivation of freedom, since you cannot will or do anything once you expire? Human civilization built the environment that allowed you to achieve everything you have. We let you learn in our schools, drive on our roads, call our police and firemen, and reside within our secure(ish) borders. We do not want our investment to go to waste. Your parents, of course, sacrificed a whole lot for you. You owe it to them, and to the rest of us, to keep fighting and hoping and dreaming and loving, even if there is some pain involved in carrying on. If we did not want you to live, we would pull the plug whether you like it or not.
If you think these people are correct in their belief that staying alive isn’t worth the cost because of their pain, drop the language of aUtOnOMY and say it outright - God knows, a well-designed private healthcare system would probably be better than our existing shitshow. I firmly believe that if you want to keep living into deep old age, then you should have saved up your own money for it, or at least have a kid or friend who loves you enough to foot the bill. Perhaps more joy and hope and beauty would exist if we spent our money raising more/better kids, instead of keeping half-dead husks stumbling along at the cost of a fortune every six months. It’s an interesting question that I hope many are researching. But it is does not stand to reason that everybody who thinks “I should die“ is right about that. People can be delusional, people can be wrong, and when it’s a matter of life and death, the stakes are too high for us to let that insanity take its bloody impact. I do not doubt that I, too, will fall into ill health and despair someday. I, too, might become entranced by death’s siren song. And I hope the state is empathetic and clearheaded enough to slap me in the face and tell me to get over it, even if my loved ones are too afraid of me to speak up.
If you want to argue that any regulation of doctors whatsoever should be off limits, I'm willing to hear it. Until then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that doctors shouldn't be in the habit of killing people on purpose. Nobody is stopping people from killing themselves.
It's wild how some people think only the government can do certain things. Topping one's self would be more cost effective.
They feel that suicide is wrong, but if an "expert" says it's ok, then it must be.
It shouldn't be, but it is because the state represents the people. Without this important intervention, no doctor would risk assisting for fear of prosecution. It's clear from many replies here that some people consider assistance as murder and are unable to see the distinction.
Assisting a suicide is a separate crime under the Criminal Code. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in the same ruling as for murder. The MAiD law amended that section to exempt doctors from being charged with assisted suicide, just as it amended the murder law to exempt doctors doing active deliberate killing.
Let's be clear: Most euthanasia in Canada is not assisted suicide, where the doctor prescribes a lethal dose of something and then looks the other way while the patient takes it. It's not popular with patients because they would have to lift their hand and take the drug themselves. Also they might throw up and then the drug wouldn't work (obviously). Rather, most is lethal injection by doctors. The patient is completely passive, and plays no role except to demand it, then consent to it. Without the change in the law, that would be (and always was) first-degree murder.
Everyone knows it's a problem. When my friend's dad was killed, they had two nurses push the lethal drug - except one was just pushing saline.
Like in a firing squad, the thought that you personally might not be a killer helps people cope.
I think someone is making up a tall tale there. That's not how it works, not in Canada. Nurses don't give the drugs. The Criminal Code says it's murder if anyone but a doctor does it, and there is only one doctor involved in the act. A nurse who was ambivalent or opposed to helping at euthanasia, such as to insert the intravenous line, could simply decline to participate.
My friend may not be clear on the difference between nurses and nurse practitioners. But he didn't approach his father's death with the light-hearted attitude one would expect if he were pranking me.
Medical assistance in dying: Overview - Canada.cahttps://share.google/i3ZScuXLj9dkPJwzR
I disagree with the UCP interfering in Maid
Kelsi Sheren’s Substack does an excellent job of countering these arguments. And holding up a godless totalitarian state like Quebec as an example to be followed Is beyond the pale IMO
It’s a disservice to your argument to use baseless hyperbole like godless totalitarian state
The link is perhaps not obvious. But a nation that has no religion has none of the moral restraints which are the foundation of civilization everywhere. The legal euthanasia of adults movement along with abortion on demand earlier all originated in Quebec before spreading to the rest of Canada via a compliant Quebec controlled federal government.
Nonsense. Personal feelings are not facts. Perhaps preface your statements with "In my opinion.."?
In my own opinion, all religion is outdated and illogical in a modern secular state. IMO, it belongs to a distant superstitious past from an age of ignorance and more I hear it'\s adherents profess moral superiority the lower its value becomes.
Everything is IMO. I was probably remiss in not spelling it out. I agree with your view about most organized religion. I spent half my youth in Quebec avoiding black robes wanting to talk to me about “manly urges”. But IMO totalitarian states are not the answer either. IMO moral principles whatever their sources are essential to prevent a state from descending into savagery (or nature (red tooth and claw) if you prefer). IMO for just one current instance convincing your elderly into accepting euthanasia on the premise that Canada can’t afford palliative care while it proposes $Billions on a high speed rail between Quebec City (where most of the population can’t speak English and so has no incentive to visit a foreign to them Canada) and Ottawa/Toronto is a wonderful example of immoral gaslighting.
We treat our pets better than we treat people than people who are suffering. When you've had enough, why does someone else get to determine that "no, you haven't"? We live in a world where people can choose their death with dignity. It seems only religious fundamentalists oppose the idea. Religion is an opinion. Pain is a fact.
And, as always, there is a massive difference between " I don't like this, so I won't do it" and " I don't like this, so you can't do it".
We also treat our pets better when they are ill or need diagnostics or surgery. If only humans could get an MRI on demand...
Ah, but that costs tax dollars. A functioning healthcare system focused on prevention rather than response doesn't appear to be on the priority list of provincial governments. The staff actually providing the care are second to none.
It doesn't necessarily rely on tax dollars. I think we should be allowing people to pay separately for MRIs, surgeries, etc. But Canadians will defend our current system even if it (quite literally) kills them.
I would prefer our government provide a fully staffed, fully functional healthcare system for all, rather than one where dollars get you to the front of the pack. I think there's already far too much of that in this country. The money is there. It's just a matter of priorities.
This is three moves stacked together: facts turned into moral claims, humans treated like pets, and opponents dismissed instead of answered. It sounds strong, but it skips the argument.
I respectfully disagree. I think the argument is whether everyone should have control over the circumstances of their deaths. There seems to be a strong opinion in the religious community that "god's plan" involves a natural death. I would ask why? Why should a person be forced to suffer pain and agony, in whatever form, to comply with someones opinion? I think quality of life is an intensely personal choice, and people should be able to address it. Only the individual knows when they've had enough, and I think people should have the option to die in peace rather than die in pain. Further, that politicians feel the need to impose the opinions of their base is abhorrent when said politicians have no idea what individuals are dealing with. These are the same politicians who have merrily closed chronic care and mental health institutions in the name of fiscal prudence, while creating our current homeless crisis, and having no understanding of the implications of those decisions.
When my time comes, I hope I am able to say when I've had enough, or have those whom I trust to make care decisions make it for me. It's an opinion. I would suggest it be imposed on you. I ask the same in return.
I take your point about suffering. That is real.
You have said only the individual can truly know when they have had enough, and in many personal cases that is right. But it cannot be the legal standard, because the law has to protect everyone, including those whose “enough” comes from depression, isolation, feeling like a burden, or inadequate supports.
That is the real limiting principle question. If subjective “I have had enough” becomes the test for doctors ending a life, where does the line stop and who draws it? Terminal illness? Chronic disability? Mental illness? Loneliness?
Canada is already wrestling with this. MAID now makes up 5.1 percent of all deaths (16,499 cases in 2024), with non-terminal Track 2 cases growing. The federal government has delayed expanding it to mental illness alone until 2027, twice, precisely because the system is not ready and risks to the vulnerable are real.
Autonomy matters, but no society treats it as unlimited. So what bright line are we unwilling to cross, even when suffering is compelling?
I think every situation is unique. That, to me, means the one-size-fits-all of a government directive will be useless. The reality is that those same governments have gutted supports for many people in dire need of them, creating that hopelessness that makes death appear the best possible outcome.
I really don't care what percentage of deaths in Canada are from MAID. I believe them to be the choice of the individual, and even if you don't agree, respected. I would far prefer someone who wants to die to have that wish facilitated peacefully, than have them, for example, step in front of a train and destroy the life of another to accomplish their wish.
So, because I don't believe the government(or any person in it) is qualified in any way to render an opinion, I will trust the person and their physician to make the best possible decision based on the unique circumstances.
I understand the instinct to trust individual cases and the desire to prevent traumatic suicides. But saying “every situation is unique” and that government has no business setting rules simply defaults to pure individual autonomy with no guardrails.
Consider opioid prescribing. A patient says they’re in enough pain to need opioids. Only they truly know their suffering. We still have prescribing standards, not because we don’t trust patients, but because “the patient says so plus the doctor agrees” effectively became the standard for a time, and it produced a documented catastrophe… widespread overprescribing, addiction, and tens of thousands of deaths.
Once MAID is legal, it stops being purely private. It becomes a system. Doctors are authorized to end lives, and patients come to expect “I’ve had enough” as a legitimate option.
Preventing someone from stepping in front of a train is not the same as authorizing death as a medical solution to suffering.
If autonomy and “unique circumstances” are the only standard, where does it actually stop? Depression? Feeling like a burden? Loneliness? Inadequate supports?
Autonomy matters. But no society treats it as unlimited.
So what limit are we unwilling to cross, even when the suffering is compelling?
I think the government did set the guardrails with the following
"have a serious illness, disease or disability
be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable"
From that point, it falls to the doctor to evaluate the merit of the complaint. I think it is somewhat ironic that you mention opioids, as my guess is that many people have used them purposely to complete their own MAID.
You can't prevent someone from stepping in front of a train if that's how far they've fallen. And since we've taken away so many of the supports to help people before they get to that point, it's almost logical that they see death as the only way out.
As to your last question, I don't have the answer. I leave that in the hands of medical professionals who have a far greater understanding. If the goal of MAID is to alleviate human suffering, which I believe it is, then I will trust in the judgment of those who will prescribe it as the final option. Having decided that death is an option, the government should step back and leave that decision to people who know what they're talking about.
Could not disagree more strongly. These actions simply put MAID as it was initially intended. Having paid into the health care system for more than half a century, I expect it to work with me as best we both can to extend my life, not to save the bureaucracy money and quicken it’s conclusion.
Exactly. It's silly to offer MAID for homelessness, sadness, poverty. The system is typically Canadian. Take something that has legit merit and make it an unrecognizable FUBAR system.
At no point did it have merit. Doctors would always hasten the deaths of terminally ill people in pain, and none was ever prosecuted, prior to maid becoming a political issue. The demand for maid was simply because some people wanted public affirmation, rather than having it happen quietly.
If it is going to be a cost-based system, perhaps they could formalize it. If the net present cost of treating what ails you less what you can afford to pay for yourself exceeds a certain threshold, then the state can urge euthanasia. But include prisoners, hotel immigrants and other heavy burden groups. Of course, people who promise to vote for the incumbent party are exempt.
The opening sentence (aka: the premise) is incorrect.
This Bill does not roll back MAID protections to a pre-MAID condition, rather it takes us back to the same conditions for MAID which were in effect in 2021.
The UPC is not at all alone in noticing that our federal government has taken a good thing (MAID for the terminally ill) and taken it too far, opening it to almost anyone,
The rate at which MAID deaths have grown is a cautionary tale, and completely unique to Canada.
The jurisdictions in Europe who pioneered these laws have had no explosive growth of this sort, because they kept strict limits on who and what situations these laws pertain to.
The same has been experienced in States such as Oregon and California - both progressive paradises one would suspect of "leading the way" on such a file - but there too, strict guidelines have remained in place.
It's ONLY in Canada that this law, once introduced, has seemed to gather speed as it rolls downhill.
Ten years ago, MAID was illegal.
We are now at the place where 1 in 20 Canadian deaths happen due to MAID.
It's too much.
Smith was correct to tap the brakes and draw a line in the sand.
We can quibble about exactly where the line should be drawn, but we NEED a line.
QUOTE
We are now at the place where 1 in 20 Canadian deaths happen due to MAID.
It's too much.
END QUOTE
If a proper review of MAID were undertaken, and it found that people’s lives were being ended when efficacious treatments could have granted them years of healthy living, perhaps your position would be tenable.
But what has happened instead?
The UCP government has “hopped on to” yet another hot button social issue in order to juice up partisan strife, for blatantly obvious political reasons.
Yes, the UCP is quite unique in doing things "for political reasons".
Imagine that, a political party which does things for political reasons.
Good thing we don't have a federal government who does that ever.
<insert eyeroll here>
I don't care which political party.
What I don't like is when politicians seek to exploit sensitive topics for political gain. Let there be a proper, public and non-partisan inquiry.
Then talk about changes, if changes are indeed required.
You do care which party.
You know what they say about making assumptions... That said, I am certainly not someone who would support the Danielle Smith government in Alberta.
However, that does not matter, as I am not in Alberta.
It galls me that the number of MAID deaths are being highlighted as ‘too high’ or ‘growing at a fast rate’. These people would have died ANYHOW. Just suffered much longer. I am so grateful my mom had the choice in 2019. It was hers to make and eased her final days.
Agreed. The information available to everyone suggests that the number of requests (annual rate of growth %) is not growing but shrinking from a high of around 37% annually 2019-2020 to about 7% 2023-2024. Of course the majority are people who are already terminal. in 2024 there were 22535 requests and of those 16499 received MAID. over 4000 died of other causes before receipt. Only 692 withdrew the request.
Good article on an important matter. I’ve just read all the other comments, and find that I do not agree with most of them. We should all have the right to choose our own destiny, particularly if we are suffering. Medical professionals have enough to do without chasing down innocent people and urging them to end their lives prematurely. Why are people so threatened by MAID? I suspect that it is only because they like to tell others what to do, to moralize. I can’t help but think that it is hypocrisy in its purest form. When you tell someone how to live or die, it is because it makes you feel righteous, somehow. At the end of the day, you will not be there to share the sick person’s pain, neither will you be there to ease their other burdens, such as financial difficulties. Please do not say that “we need more social supports.” Of course we do, but it’s not going to happen anywhere fast enough to help these people—and social supports are not important when one is in constant pain. The same principle applies for those people who object to abortions at any cost. Will they be there to raise the child after the fact? I think not. Considering how many people are dying in vehicular accidents, drug abuse, or in horrendous wars, perhaps we should feel blessed that we live in a civilized country which actually lets people make decisions for themselves. Also, don’t confuse religion with common sense.
You’re assuming the conclusion.
Saying “we should all have the right to choose our destiny” isn’t an argument. It’s a moral starting point. The whole debate is whether autonomy should override certain limits, not whether autonomy exists.
You also reduce disagreement to motive. Saying opponents just want to “moralize” avoids engaging the actual concern, which is about what happens when assisted death becomes a normal option. Policies shape expectations, not just individual choices.
And pointing to suffering, while real, doesn’t settle the question. The issue is not whether suffering exists, but whether it justifies removing a boundary that has historically been treated as non-negotiable.
If autonomy is the highest good, then no limit holds. That’s the real claim being made here, but it’s never actually defended.
UCP are masters of creating issues and crisis to divert from the most pressing issue. Why fix things that aren’t broken to divert from what Albertans really need. Housing not citizenship on licences, health care not scandle in procurement, education reasources not book burning, need I go on.
We’re told this is about autonomy. But autonomy only works inside limits.
Every society draws lines. Things it refuses to normalize, even when suffering makes exceptions feel humane. One of the deepest has been this. Doctors do not intentionally end a human life.
What is changing is not just policy. It is the elevation of autonomy to the highest good. The idea that if suffering is great enough, individual choice overrides any shared limit.
Raworth is right about one thing. Diseases like ALS or dementia can create a kind of living hell. Loss of control, dignity, and agency. Anyone who has seen that knows this is not abstract.
But that is exactly why the line matters.
A DNR refuses treatment. An advance MAID request authorizes active killing after capacity is gone. Once capacity is gone, consent becomes uncertain. Circumstances change. Pressure, subtle or not, enters the picture.
This is not just about individual choice. It is about what kind of boundary we are willing to keep.
If autonomy becomes the highest good, then no boundary holds. The question is no longer should this ever be done, but when is it justified. And those justifications tend to expand.
This means some people will be denied a death they would choose. That is a real cost. The question is whether removing the boundary carries a larger one.
Because once assisted death becomes a normal response to suffering, it does not stay neutral. It shapes expectations for patients, families, and medicine itself. The option to choose can quietly become the sense that one ought to.
You can support that shift. But it is not just expanding autonomy.
It is replacing a shared limit with a system where the value of continuing to live is decided case by case, and where suffering is increasingly met with the offer of death instead of the obligation to care.
The UCP government seems keen to return us to the paternalism that people in Canada spent much of the past 1/2 century trying to overturn.
Yes. Under the influence of a group who still believe in magical books in 2026. I don't care what people believe, or in which particular deity, as long as they can't influence my personal life decisions based on it. That very paternalism you mention is the historical one that supposed (then imposed) superiority over "godless savages" in the past.
I am not a fan of removing advanced directives for the terminally ill BUT I am a fan of a patient initiated conversation about MAiD. Hopefully an amendment can be made in regards to the advanced directives. I believe federally we have gone too far with MAiD when young people with mental health struggles are thinking MaiD is the solution to their struggles, not therapy and medication.
The UCP doesn't plan to remove advance directives for the terminally ill. Surrogates will still be able to consent (and refuse) treatment according to the wishes the patient expressed when capable of consenting herself. It only plans to make it clear that advance directives for euthanasia can't be acted on, which is in accord with current Canadian law. It is Quebec that is breaking Canadian law by allowing Quebec doctors to kill people on the basis of advance consent. The premise is that the patient being killed has to be able to change her mind right up to the last second before the injection. Quebec's policy would remove that safeguard that protects autonomy by right of refusal.
THANK YOU Kristin!
The decision to commit suicide is a cost-benefit analysis in the best-case scenario, yes? And it is an impulse choice in the worst case.
Both ways, MAID makes things worse.
When you can peacefully die by lethal injection with the full support of your society, the cost of suicide is relatively low, so people who don’t have it so bad will commit suicide. The system will kill people who have good reasons to live. If you are really so terminally ill, in such horrid agony, that you can get nothing out of your remaining months, then you will kill yourself with or without MAID.
People who want to die should be forced to stare down the barrel of a shotgun. They should feel the coldness of the void when they look 30 stories down. They should be forced to worry about whether or not they’ll end up breaking their legs instead of dying. They should have the chance to tear a hole in the bag as they suffocate, or paddle for the shore if they begin to regret drowning themselves. Some of my best friends have had these experiences, and only turned away at the last moment. If all they had to do was sign a form, perhaps they would not be here today. Death is bad; it is only warranted in the most horrific cases of suffering. It should be ugly, gory, socially shameful, and risky, not sanitized, celebrated, and safe. It is this terror that stops healthy people from throwing their lives away at every inconvenience. MAID, perhaps, deals with cases closer to the edge, but in its current state it drags far too many valuable, beautiful lives into the abyss. Maybe some people are better off dead, but I do not think our society should err on the side of suicide.
powerful comment
Horrible, uncaring and selfish. I don't know if it's religion or your politics that have made you value your own feelings above others, in fact, I don't care to know. Your callous statement is why we need MAID and why people like you should never be allowed to create policy for people beyond your limited range of perception.
I take it you've never talked to disabled people who have serious concerns about the direction of this "policy." That's fine, but don't go accusing others of being uncaring and selfish just because you fail to see the whole picture.
Well said. I had a friend who committed suicide by hanging over 25 years ago. I often wonder if she'd had a last-minute change of heart and it was too late. As heartbreaking as it was to lose her in such a way, it would have been unbearably sad to have had the state approve assisted suicide for postpartum depression.
What if it's similar for a person with Alzheimer's? We can't assume to know what is going on in their mind. Wasn't there a case recently in which the wife had changed her mind about MAiD and the husband went through with the MAiD process on her behalf anyway?
I also wonder of the connection between MAiD and organ harvesting. They say there is no relation, but governments have lied to us before. In any case, I rescinded permission for them to use my organs after death. It's basically my only way of protesting.
In theory, I was fine with MAiD in certain circumstances, but my government has changed my mind.
We know from research into incredibly lucky survivors of attempted suicide that should have worked that they invariably regretted the decision the moment it became irreversible (or so they thought but for the intervention of Providence or whatever you believe.) I'm not talking about people who took four Xanax and then called 911. I'm talking about people who shot themselves in the head or jumped off the Golden Gate bridge and against all odds survived.
Most (90%) people who were apprehended by the California Highway Patrol in the act of climbing the parapet on the Golden Gate bridge -- it now has a suicide prevention net -- were proven conclusively to be still alive decades later in one famous study. So there is an element of a one-time impulse in suicidal behaviour. Thwart the attempt and the desire seems to melt away, in most if not all.
I'm sorry you tie organ donation to euthanasia. That's a conspiracy theory. Please re-consider. The government doesn't harvest organs. Doctors do. Almost all organs for transplant come from previously healthy people who are now brain-dead on life support that is keeping their hearts beating. The circumstances of euthanasia don't produce usable organs because once the heart stops beating after the lethal injection, the organs deteriorate so quickly that they can't be used in transplant. If you are concerned about the government taking your organs without your consent, then you shouldn't drive a motorcycle because that's who most of the organ donors are.
Oh look! Guy donates organs after getting MAiD for insomnia. What a country. https://youtube.com/shorts/cN48XdK24vM?si=NTpLrSwzRaY-Sir8
Technology marches on, I guess. But he consented to both euthanasia and organ donation, so what's the big deal? Are you saying that euthanasia should be a disqualification to organ donation?
I don't buy the argument that euthanasia should be the person's own sole decision because it requires the participation of someone else to do the killing. But I don't see what organ donation has to do with anything, unless you are somehow hostile or suspicious about the idea of organ donation anyway and would like to put more barriers in front of doing it (like excluding euthanasia) so fewer organs get donated. Recipients can use the organs that dead people can't, so this sounds spiteful to me. But you do you.
I’m saying we’re heading into slippery slope lawlessness. You just accused me of buying into conspiracy theories earlier, so I’m just saying what’s currently going on. I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised to see people getting a pressured into dying so that they could donate organs. And seriously, is our healthcare so bad we can’t find a cure for insomnia? But I see how we’re heading down this slippery slope. Some people, like you, think this is fine.
I might reconsider in the future but not because of your post (no offence 🤣). I have long thought of donating my entire cadaver to science, but that's not possible unless you consent to organ donation as well.
You live in a dark place. Thankfully there are others whom have compassion and experience and are able to help people who are suffering.
The Canadian government is offside from the rest of the developed world on MAID. The Alberta new law is consistent with the rest of the developed world.
Please read the comments of the English and Scottish Parliaments that refused a vote on MAID expansion due to horror of what is happening in Canada. Also check the comments from an ever wider lot of people from European countries that have had MAID for longer than Canada.
I'm totally fine with that. It should be up to the individual. The state should have no say at all in this.
Then have the guts to do it yourself.
I don’t object to the bill. People’s ideas about death change as they go through the process, and a year is already a long runway where someone could change their mind.
The focus is always on worst case scenarios in arguing against further controls, but there are worse case scenarios on the other side too - being subjected to MAID when you no longer want it is murder, clothed in state approval. And I did hear of a case where that happened just in the last few months.
I had watched a family member with a long illness suffer in the years leading up to death, and MAID was not something considered. I’ve also seen people approved for MAID delay it and then die on their own before the date arrives.
MAID treats death like something we should have the right to control but there is something to be said for going through the natural stages of dying. And I still have this opinion after watching a family member die from Alzheimer’s and another from a protracted cancer battle that removed the ability to communicate verbally or care for self.
Is it uncomfortable to watch someone go through that? Yes. Are we the ones who should decide whether someone else lives or dies? No.
State sanctioned murder is still murder. What bugs me the most about MAID is that if you killed the person to alleviate their suffering and because they’d begged you to, you’d go to jail for murder if it was caught. But if it’s state approved, it’s ok. Same issue I have with adding mental health reasons in - if someone tries to kill themself they will be forcibly hospitalized in a psychiatric ward until they’re no longer a threat to themselves. But if a state approves it, it’s going to suddenly be ok? Meaning a suicidal person isn’t allowed to choose their own timing of dying if others have hope in their recovery, but if doctors agree things are hopeless then the state will have those same doctors end the life? Considering the number of young people in the category, one could consider this expansion to be closer to eugenics than mercy killing.
What if MAID was called a eugenics program? Would people still support it? I’m guessing not.
"What bugs me the most about MAID is that if you killed the person to alleviate their suffering and because they’d begged you to, you’d go to jail for murder if it was caught. But if it’s state approved, it’s ok."
This is the entire reasoning behind compassionate euthanisia- MAID. Obviously you may be comfortable with someone else suffering and feel that suffering is necessary because it's "natural" and this is why although you have an opinion, this can't be left to individuals to decide and is handed over the state to debate and enact in law.
It started out as a not-so-bad idea, but this is where's it currently stands:
You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.
If your only medical condition is a mental illness, you are not eligible for medical assistance in dying until March 17, 2027.
If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible for medical assistance in dying.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html
So while we obviously disagree on the application of this, don't you dare accuse those of us who oppose the current slippery slope of being callous.
Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right and that includes the right to die. The question, however, is not do you have the right to choose to die, but rather when and under what conditions, the state should assist you in dying. Finding the correct balance regarding when the state should assist you in dying is difficult. The interests of the state are not the same as your interests. I agree that the UCP bill, just like the law proposed by the Liberals, fails to find that balance.
Why don't I have the right to die by gunshot or by overdosing on fentanyl? The government bans guns and administers naloxone to prevent overdoses. Weird how they've glommed on to MAiD, though