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
No comments:
Post a Comment