How a Structured Exchange Became a Masterclass in Deflection

The following post is part of a structured, multi-week, simultaneously published exchange between Kim Carlson and Paul Magennis, authors of  MAiD in Canada, and Gordon Friesen, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. These alternating messages will explore deeply divergent views on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), and no mutual endorsement is implied.

Previously published instalments have been:

Gordon Friesen, Monday, January 12, 2026.
Maid in Canada (MIC)     January 19, 2026.
Gordon Friesen                January 26, 2026.
Maid in Canada (MIC)     February 2, 2026
Gordon Friesen                January 26, 2026 .

On Capacity and Its Absence:

How a Structured Exchange Became a Masterclass in Deflection

When Friesen approached us about a multi-week exchange, he was clear, “my interest is to get my point of view published on your blog.” Congratulations, you achieved exactly that. Your point of view was published, repeatedly, even when it wandered well outside the agreed-upon topics.

What was supposed to be a structured, good-faith discussion became a showcase in dehumanizing statements, diversions, and inaccurate use of references. Instead of engaging with the arguments directly, Friesen took off-topic detours and then claimed there was "insufficient space” to address the actual issue.

If the objective was simply to use our platform as a megaphone while avoiding meaningful scrutiny, then mission accomplished. But let’s be clear, avoiding thoughtful and respectful discussion is not a position of strength. It’s what you do when you are trying to protect your narrative.

Back to our regularly — or perhaps chaotically — scheduled program

We will complete this (un)structured “exchange” by attempting to respond to this latest post and hopefully close off this discussion back at the agreed upon topic.

Friesen begins his final contribution by conceding that he and Kelsi Sheren “have a natural connection, because we are both eligible” for MAiD, a claim he repeats multiple times. Eligibility, however, is not self-declared. It is determined following a voluntary request, informed consent, and assessment by two independent clinicians. If neither of them has undergone that process, then repeatedly describing themselves as “eligible” is, at best, speculative — and at worst, misleading.

Upon learning that we redacted some of his post Friesen stated in an email that he and Sheren “have an earned experiential right to discuss suicide in ways that (we) would not be comfortable with.” Based on this post and his email, he appears to believe that medical conditions and lived experiences grant them both freedom to speak about suicide and MAiD in whatever terms they choose. Lived experience deserves respect. But it does not grant immunity from responsibility and accountability, nor does it place anyone beyond critique. Yet his latest contribution suggests he views them both as members of a protected class of experience — one that must never be challenged, corrected, or, in his words, “censored,” regardless of how reckless and dangerous their statements may be.

“Pet theory of Carter”

We are not entirely certain, but it appears that Friesen’s reference to “pet theory of Carter” is directed at our statement that “Uncertainty is not justification for categorical exclusion, and arguments of this kind have already been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.” In doing so, he seems to suggest that reliance on Carter v. Canada[1] is inadequate or irrelevant when assessing the constitutionality of categorical exclusions.

The constitution and the courts would disagree. In Canada, the evolution of MAiD has and will continue to be shaped by individuals with lived experience bringing Charter challenges before the courts. As a reminder to Friesen, Carter did not explicitly exclude any particular group. The federal government chose to restrict access only to those whose natural deaths were reasonably foreseeable, thereby creating categorical exclusion. Those exclusions were subsequently challenged in Truchon v. Quebec, leading to the passage of Bill C-7.[2] As a result, individuals whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable are no longer excluded from accessing MAiD.  

The evolution of MAiD follows a clear constitutional pattern: exclusions are tested against the Charter, and where they cannot be justified, they fall. In addition, the courts have consistently rejected fear and speculative concerns as sufficient justification for a complete prohibition. To characterize this constitutional trajectory as a “pet theory” is to dismiss not merely our position, but the jurisprudential path that has defined the legal framework itself.

The next charter challenge

John Scully is 84 years old and has lived with PTSD for approximately 30 years.[3] He has described the persistence of his symptoms in stark terms: “Every single night of my life now I get nightmares, horrific nightmares. It doesn’t stop.”[4] He has spoken publicly about decades of treatment and has acknowledged two prior suicide attempts. His condition stems from nearly 50 years as a war correspondent covering 36 war zones.

Scully, along with Claire Elyse Brousseau, have launched a constitutional challenge seeking to end the exclusion of individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.[5] Once again, history appears to follow a familiar constitutional path driven by individuals with lived experience.

The constitutional question is not about whether uncertainty exists in psychiatric prognostication or capacity assessments. The question is whether uncertainty or moral opposition can withstand constitutional scrutiny as a basis for denying Scully and an entire class of competent adults even the opportunity to be assessed for MAiD. If fear is insufficient to justify categorical exclusion in one context, it does not become constitutionally sufficient simply because the suffering is psychiatric rather than physical. “We all must demand that we mentally ill will be accorded identical human rights as the physically ill, with access to MAiD on the very same conditions that they have.”[6]

Conclusion

We agreed to this exchange on the understanding that it would be thoughtful, respectful, and focused on the agreed-upon topics. Rather than continuing to talk past one another, we saw it as an opportunity to engage directly in each of our concerns and differing opinions, and give readers a genuine chance to consider both views.

However, at the announcement of this exchange, Friesen stated, “the more public interest which is stimulated, the more, we believe, that our own positions will gain traction.”[7] By his own framing, this was never about engaging meaningfully with complex ethical and clinical questions. It appears his purpose was amplification and spectacle. It was an opportunity for him to rail against MAiD before an audience that may not ordinarily engage with his work.

He also seemed to think this was something to be won — a “cage fight,” even a “battle of the titans,” as he put it in one of our email exchanges. From his perspective, it was a contest, with readers cast as spectators rather than participants in a careful and principled dialogue. What could have been a meaningful exchange between individuals with opposing views was instead turned into a battleground.

Discussions about MAiD — particularly where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition — require good faith, intellectual humility, and genuine seriousness. Mr. Friesen’s approach to this exchange was, in our view, fundamentally unserious.

Readers deserve better.

References

---

[1] Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5.html

[2] Legislative Background Bill C-7: Government of Canada’s Legislative Response to the Superior Court of Québec Truchon Decision

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/ad-am/c7/c7-eng.pdf

[3] Scully, John. Am I Dead Yet?: 71 Countries, 36 War Zones, One Man's Opinion. Fitzhenry & Whiteside Ltd, 2008.

[4] Toronto man explains why he wants MAiD for mental health issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNuk_1XBJs

[5] Announcement of Charter Challenge for Mental Illness

https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/MDSUMC_Lawsuit_PressRelease_EN_FINAL.pdf

[6] John Scully: Why people living with mental disorders deserve equal treatment under the law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-UEux9koE

[7] Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Sponsors Debate on Medical Homicide for Mental Illness (Jan 4, 2026)

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2026-01-05T12:22:00-05:00&max-results=100&start=27&by-date=false

 

Dying With Dignity's financials.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on February 5, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

There is a basic ethical rule we apply almost everywhere else in society, almost. If you profit from an outcome, you should not be the loudest voice advocating for it, but I guess Dying with Dignity didn’t get the morality memo.

Medicine used to understand this instinctively.

Doctors are not supposed to financially benefit from prescribing a particular drug. Judges are expected to recuse themselves if they have a stake in a case. Regulators are scrutinized when they take money from the industries they oversee. We understand or at least normal people understand intuitively — that money distorts judgment.

Except, apparently, when it comes to death.

In Canada, organizations that aggressively lobby for euthanasia and assisted death are allowed to operate as tax-exempt charities, raise millions of dollars, invest surplus funds, earn substantial interest, and spend heavily on advertising ON FACEBOOK all while presenting themselves as neutral advocates for “choice” and “dignity.”

Nothing about that is neutral. Advertising death is INSANE. This is a massive conflict of interest.

When an organization’s continued relevance, funding, and growth depend on expanding access to assisted death (poisoning by your dr), its incentives are no longer aligned with caution, restraint, or genuine exploration of alternatives. They are aligned with normalization. Expansion, rapid expansion at that and volume.

That doesn’t require malice, necessarily. It only requires incentives, and money is one hell of an incentive.

“In 2024 Dying with Dignity Canada had $9,231,137 in assets, of which $7,370,174 was in long term investments.”

Dying With Dignity Canada does not simply respond to public demand. It actively manufactures it daily, through marketing campaigns, political lobbying, media engagement, and messaging that frames euthanasia as compassionate, inevitable, and progressive.

In 2024 alone, the organization spent over $800,000 on advertising and promotions. That is not an educational pamphlet budget. That is a persuasion budget, the slow trip method to convincing a country to kill itself.

Now go ahead and ask yourself an uncomfortable but necessary question. Why does an organization advocating for death need to advertise so aggressively?

The answer is obvious once you allow yourself to see it. Advocacy groups that rely on donations must maintain emotional urgency. They must keep the issue front-of-mind. They must expand the pool of people who view their cause as necessary and virtuous.

Death becomes the product, dignity becomes the brand and once death becomes the product, vulnerable people become the market. This is where the conflict sharpens and this is where Canada currently is.

The people most affected by euthanasia policy are not healthy, empowered individuals making abstract philosophical choices. They are the elderly, the disabled, the chronically ill, the mentally unwell, the socially isolated, and those failed by an underfunded healthcare system.

These are precisely the people least equipped to push back against subtle pressure and the people most likely to internalize the message that their continued existence is a burden.

When an advocacy organization profits financially and institutionally from policies that make death easier to access than care, the ethical line has already been crossed.

There is another layer to this conflict that demands attention and to be pulled apart.

Many of the same euthanasia advocates and organizations pushing for expansion are closely connected to CAMAP (the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers) the pro death cult organization that trains physicians, educates assessors, and helps shape the protocols used to deliver MAID in Canada and even advised the NIH on its Maid Kits. Even though not a SINGLE DRUG USED IS FDA APPROVED FOR KILLING.

CAMAP is not a passive observer of policy. It is involved in operationalizing it. It trains the doctors. It influences standards. It normalizes practice and it exists within the same advocacy ecosystem lobbying for broader eligibility and fewer safeguards.

That is a textbook conflict of interest, in case anyone still isn’t getting it.

An organization that helps design, teach, and implement assisted-death protocols should not be aligned directly or indirectly with groups lobbying to expand its use. The people setting the rules should not benefit from increasing the number of times those rules are applied.

In any other area of medicine, this would trigger immediate alarm. We do not allow pharmaceutical companies to both write prescribing guidelines and profit from increased prescriptions without intense scrutiny. We do not permit regulators to be trained by the industries they oversee while those industries lobby for deregulation.

Yet in MAID, this overlap is treated as normal even virtuous. It’s disgusting, frankly.

The result is a closed loop. Advocacy drives expansion, expansion increases demand for trained providers, training institutions gain influence and legitimacy, and the system reinforces itself. Oversight collapses into endorsement. Safeguards quietly erode under the banner of “best practice.”

This is not conspiracy. It is structural misalignment.

When the same network benefits reputationally, professionally, and institutionally from the growth of assisted death, the possibility of genuine restraint disappears. The question stops being “Should this person die?” and becomes “How do we process this efficiently?” and once death becomes a system complete with training pipelines, protocols, certifications, and career pathways — it is no longer just a medical option.

It is an industry. A pro death industry, complete with organ removal and all. Nothing to see here….

What makes this even more disturbing is what isn’t being funded at the same scale.

Palliative care in Canada remains uneven, underfunded, and inaccessible in many regions. Mental health support is rationed. Disability supports are bureaucratic nightmares. Veterans, the poor, and the chronically ill routinely report being offered assisted death while waiting months or years for care.

Yet the organizations pushing hardest for euthanasia expansion are flush with cash. This is not coincidence. It is misalignment, it’s intentional… it’s evil.

A system that finds money for death but not for care is making a values statement whether it admits it or not and a charity that grows wealthier as death becomes more normalized cannot credibly claim to be free of conflict.

Canadians deserve better than this cult, Canadians should demand transparency about financial incentives, separation between advocacy and policy design, and independent oversight free from financial entanglement.

We would demand this in any other domain involving life-altering decisions. Death should not be the exception. When euthanasia advocacy becomes a lucrative, tax-exempt enterprise, the question is no longer whether choice exists.

The question is whether consent can remain truly free in a system where death pays and that is a question Canada has not yet had the courage to face.

It’s clear to me, it cannot be truly free, when it’s being coerced into killing itself.

Source: https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2026/02/dying-with-dignitys-lucrative-death.html

Suicide prevention group concerned about the legalization of assisted suicide

Death should never be a substitute for adequate care and support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) published a statement on assisted suicide and euthanasia in 2025. Considering the silence by many suicide prevention groups, the statement of the IASP is important. The statement says:

There is a strong potential for overlap or equivalence between what we consider to be suicide and euthanasia and assisted suicide (EaAS), particularly when EaAS is provided not at the end of life and instead to those with chronic conditions for whom death is not imminent. Research and clinical experience indicate that when a person has an irremediable illness or life situation, steps can still be taken to remediate the suffering and reasons motivating their desire to die. Even when it may convincingly appear to be hopeless, premature deaths can be prevented. IASP’s position is that:

1. Jurisdictions considering legalising and/or expanding the availability of assisted suicide and euthanasia should engage meaningfully with suicide prevention experts and/or organisations to carefully weigh concerns about overlap between what is being contemplated and what we usually consider to be suicide. Any such concerns should have a prominent impact on decision-making.

2. Jurisdictions that legalise and regulate assisted suicide and euthanasia must ensure that other means to alleviate a person’s physical and emotional suffering, including provision of better psychosocial and material supports, mental health services and palliative care, are systematically offered and provided. Death should never be a substitute for adequate care and support.

The IASP statement further suggests:

• All persons who are seeking to end their lives have the same access to high quality suicide prevention assessments and interventions.
• All people and organizations who work in suicide prevention must to their utmost to provide the same level of quality help and interventions to all people who express a wish to die.
• All people in suicide prevention should be provided with end-of-life and hospice/palliative care training.

The statement continues:

4. IASP encourages and supports research on the relationship between suicide and assisted suicide and euthanasia, and research on best practices in suicide prevention assessments and interventions with persons who are suffering from irremediable medical conditions, as well as ethical standards for suicide prevention with these populations.

5. IASP is concerned that because of the inability, documented in current research, to predict which persons with a mental illness have a poor or hopeless prognosis, and which will substantially improve, with or without treatment, we should not allow access to EaAS for persons whose suffering is solely associated with a mental illness.

This IASP statement is important since the death lobby argues that there is a clear difference between requests for suicide as compared to requests for assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

In March 2021, (MAiD) euthanasia was extended to people who are not terminally ill but rather living with a grievous and irremediable medical conditions in Canada. Many of these euthanasia deaths appear to be requests for death based on suicidal ideation. Instead of receiving suicide prevention or mental health supports, these people become approved to be killed by euthanasia. This is a form of abandonment, not a "freedom" to choose death.

Hopefully the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) statement will lead to legislatures, world-wide, rejecting the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

Did Gavin Newsom Witness His Mother’s Murder?

This article was published by National Review online on February 5, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

California Governor Gavin Newsom is clearly running for president and — surprise, surprise — has a new memoir coming out. In an interview about the book, he recounted attending his mother’s hastened death. From the Washington Post story:

It was the spring of 2002 when Gavin Newsom’s mother, Tessa, dying of cancer, stunned him with a voicemail. If he wanted to see her again, she told him, it would need to be before the following Thursday, when she planned to end her life.

Newsom, then a 34-year-old San Francisco supervisor, did not try to dissuade her, he recounted in an interview with The Washington Post. The fast-rising politician was racked with guilt from being distant and busy as she dealt with the unbearable pain of the breast cancer spreading through her body.

Newsom’s account of his mother’s death at the age of 55 by assisted suicide, and his feelings of grief and remorse toward a woman with whom he had a loving but complex relationship, is one of the most revealing and emotional passages in the California governor’s book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery,” which will be published Feb. 24.

Some call it assisted suicide, but it appears to have actually been a homicide because she was lethally injected by a doctor:

Forty-five minutes before the “courageous doctor” arrived to administer the medicine that would end her life, Newsom and his sister gave their mother her regular dose of painkillers to keep her comfortable, he said.

When the doctor arrived, Tessa Newsom lucidly answered his questions and told him she was sure of her decision, Gavin Newsom said. Her labored breathing and the gravity of the moment became too much for Newsom’s sister. She left the room. Newsom stayed.

“Then I sat there with her for another 20 minutes after she was dead,” he said, his voice breaking briefly and his eyes welling as he told the story. “My head on her stomach, just crying, waiting for another breath.”

Here’s the thing. If the “courageous doctor” intentionally administered an overdose with the intent to kill Tessa, it was murder, which is defined in California as “the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.”

Malice in this context doesn’t mean ill will. Rather, “(1) Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” That was clearly the case in Newsom’s telling.

It’s what she wanted! Perhaps. But under the law, a victim cannot consent to being murdered, so that would be no defense for the doctor.

But Wesley, it would be legal in California today! No, it wouldn’t. California’s assisted suicide law requires self-administration. So, under the law as it currently exists, if a doctor intentionally lethally injects someone with the intent to kill, it remains murder.

Despite the obvious emotional pain caused in witnessing his mother’s killing, Newsom says that he strongly supports legalizing assisted suicide. Of course he does. Legalizing assisted suicide is a liberal agenda item. And as I said, he’s clearly running for president.

So, the question is: Did Newsom break the law? If he did not participate directly in his mother’s killing or arrange for the doctor to do the deed, probably not.

But in a 2018 recounting, he told a New Yorker reporter a somewhat different story: “The night before we gave her the drugs I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, ‘Get out of politics.’ She was worried about the stress on me.” Assisted suicide was illegal in 2002, so I don’t know.

I do wonder though, that if he had been continually caring for her so that she didn’t have to leave him a message about her plan, if he had tried to dissuade Tessa from having herself ended, and had facilitated the kind of medical care that might have made her not want to be killed, whether things might have turned out differently. Hospice, properly administered, can work wonders in that regard. But as Newsom said, he was “distant” from her and oh, so very busy.

Bill C-260 - to prevent coercion to euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Garnett Genius MP (Sherwood Park - Fort Saskatchewan) introduced private members bill C-260, on February 5, to prevent euthanasia coercion by bureaucrats and people in positions of trust or authority (excluding doctors and nurses).

Bill C-260 is not yet in the order of precedence, but we will keep you up-to-date about the timing of the first hour / second hour of debate and final vote.

You will find more information and updates about Bill C-260 at: https://carenotcoercion.ca/

The human cost of medical homicide

Gordon Friesen

The following post is part of a structured, multi-week, simultaneously published exchange between Kim Carlson and Paul Magennis, authors of  MAiD in Canada, and Gordon Friesen, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. These alternating messages will explore deeply divergent views on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), and no mutual endorsement is implied.

Previously published installments have been:

Gordon Friesen, Monday, January 12, 2026.
Maid in Canada (MIC)     January 19, 2026.
Gordon Friesen                January 26, 2026.
Maid in Canada (MIC)     February 2, 2026.

The human cost of medical homicide

By Gordon Friesen

In order to properly "concede" a point which I have never disputed (and also to correct misrepresentations of our common sources) I must first establish a larger context.

One stellar participant in our October EPC press conference was Gunner Kelsi Sheren. Kelsi is a Canadian combat veteran suffering from battlefield PTSD. She is also one of many persons who believe they would not be alive today, had psychiatric homicide existed in the past.[i]

The attempted Maid-in-Canada take-down of Kelsi Sheren is shameful and riddled with Orwellian doublespeak. I warn readers to beware of any statement, from MIC, regarding this outstanding individual whose personal sacrifice was made in our defense. In particular, the Maid-in-Canada suggestion that Kelsi Sheren's voice be silenced, is despicable.[ii]

That said, Kelsi and I have a natural connection, because we are both eligible for medical homicide --and thus both personally threatened by the Canadian system of managed death.

To be clear: judges and legislators (thus far) have only considered speculative harms, to the so-called "vulnerable", not those real and immediate harms inflicted on the entire eligible population.

Under Canadian law, Kelsi and I may be put to death with no consequences for the perpetrator.[iii] This is not speculative. It is perfectly real. Furthermore, this outrage is discriminatory. Eligibility is not a choice. We (of the eligible group) are deprived of protections enjoyed by all others; deprived of equal treatment before the law.

Worse still, thanks to homicide enthusiasts in the Province of Quebec, so-called "assistance in dying" has been authorized, not as a mere liberty of permission, but as a medical entitlement.[iv]

(Please note that I am against all killing. But the harms of homicide --defined as medical care-- are of a whole new order. In particular, talk of "autonomy" becomes absurd. For the allegedly objective benefit, of real medical treatment, is independent of patient choice.)

With homicide now incrementally imposed, as true medical care: all eligible persons are systematically targeted by a medical system re-tooling to that end. Those real, life-affirming doctors, hospitals, and nurses --who are required to support the survival-oriented majority-- are being phased-out just as quickly as legal repression and generational replacement can accomplish.[v] "Autonomy" becomes limited to the doubtful possibility of refusing homicidal "care".

Naturally, these facts are especially important to permanently eligible survivors like Kelsi and myself, but we are only the canaries in the coal mine. The struggle for life is common to all. And the danger of medical homicide is not choice-dependent like the one confronting alcoholics outside the tavern door. People do not have to go to taverns. But they all do, eventually, go to hospitals.

It is important, therefore, to understand how quantitatively marginal are the atypical desires which have been seized upon to determine standard medical care, and standard clinical culture.

Medical homicide is the final goal of death-lobby icons going back to Sue Rodriguez (1993).[vi] They do not seek a simple liberty to die. They demand that society validate their death. That society be complicit in its accomplishment. That society agree with them.

But the eligible part of society (at least) does not agree. There is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide is statistically typical.[vii] Hence, there is no circumstance in which medical homicide might be presented as normal medical care.

In psychiatric medicine this is particularly clear. There is no way to objectively predict, among comparable patients, which ones will actually die by suicide, and which will not. There is, therefore, no excuse for psychiatrists to professionally validate particular deaths. The great majority of patients, like Kelsi Sheren, need professionals who remain unconditionally committed to life, even (and especially) at times when no positive prognosis is obtainable.

For the protection of psychiatry, and that of psychiatric patients, any respectful suicidal death, whether assisted or not, must at least occur without medical validation (and without the participation of any medical professional).

Or more colorfully stated:

If someone wants to pee, that is fine. But they have no right to pee in the punch bowl from which all others must drink.

This is obviously a sensitive point for Maid-in-Canada. For it was in response, to the expression of these sentiments, that their criticism of Kelsi Sheren really went ballistic.[viii]

Forget the irony of Maid-in-Canada condemning anybody for trivializing suicide. What we realize is that the question of medical homicide has become a cage fight.

Society must decide: Is it more important to provide medically entitled access to poisoning by doctors... or to provide a general protection against that occurrence?

Clearly, the same professionals and institutions cannot do both.

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.[ix]

Unfortunately, I have insufficient space (this time) to honor my promise of correcting Maid-in-Canada's misrepresentation of sources. But I would be glad to do so (and also, to critique their pet theory of Carter and "categorical exclusion") should they feel confident enough to continue this conversation.

---

[i]      Sherin, Kelsi,MAID and the Cost of Abandonment, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 29, 2025  https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2025/10/kelsi-sheren-maid-and-cost-of.html

[ii]     Carlson, Kim Magennis, Paul, Misinformation at Parliament: What Happened on October 28th (Part II), Maid in Canada, Nov 29, 2025 https://maidincanada.substack.com/p/misinformation-at-parliament-what?open=false#%C2%A7part-ii-kelsi-sheren

[iii]   Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) (art. 214:227)  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46

[iv]    Quebec bill 52 "An act respecting end of life care" (2014) https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-52-40-1.html

[v]     Schadenberg, Alex, Court case (Day 2) to force all healthcare institutions to provide euthanasia; Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,January 15, 2026, https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/court-case-to-force-all-healthcare_15.html

[vi]    Rodriguez v. British Columbia 1993 https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1054/index.do  

[vii]  Friesen, Friesen, Quebec can tell us about the lack of social legitimacy for euthanasia and assisted suicide, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, April 2, 2025 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2025/04/quebec-can-tell-us-about-lack-of-social.html

[viii] Carlson, Kim Magennis, Paul, Misinformation at Parliament: What Happened on October 28th (Part III,a), Maid in Canada, Nov 29, 2025 https://maidincanada.substack.com/p/misinformation-at-parliament-what?open=false#%C2%A7sherens-prior-statements-about-suicide

[ix]    Schadenberg, Alex, Bill C-218 introduced to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, June 25, 2025, https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2025/06/bill-c-218-introduced-to-prevent.html