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.
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
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.”
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
No comments:
Post a Comment