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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
THANK YOU Kristin!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good!
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.