How narrative control is narrowing Canada’s MAiD debate

This article was published by Alicia Duncan on July 2, 2026.

Alicia Duncan

The Cost of Certainty

By Alicia Duncan & Kelsi Sheren

Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime was built on a promise that has become central to public trust: that those seeking an assisted death may do so within a framework of careful safeguards designed to protect the vulnerable while respecting autonomy.

I came to this issue not through ideology, but through experience. In October 2021, my mother died by MAiD in British Columbia after a rapid decline marked by severe weight loss, chronic pain, psychiatric deterioration, disordered eating, and profound hopelessness. My family believed these circumstances raised serious questions about vulnerability, capacity, and whether her desire to die reflected enduring autonomy or the distortions of untreated mental suffering.

The questions we asked in the aftermath changed the course of my life. What began as a daughter’s attempt to understand how this could happen evolved into years of investigation involving Freedom of Information requests, regulatory complaints, and what became Canada’s first police investigation into a MAiD death. That work eventually led me to testify before parliamentary committees on two separate occasions and to discussions with policymakers in the United Kingdom and Scotland. It also became the foundation for my forthcoming book, The Other Side of the Straitjacket: A Daughter’s Story of Mental Illness and Assisted Dying.

What has struck me most over these years is not simply the polarization surrounding MAiD, but the increasingly narrow boundaries of acceptable discourse around it.

Every ethically serious medical practice should be able to tolerate scrutiny, especially one involving the intentional ending of human life. Yet in Canada’s MAiD debate, criticism is often treated less as a contribution to oversight than as a threat to the legitimacy of the system itself. Questions about safeguards are reframed as attacks on autonomy. Concerns about psychiatric vulnerability are dismissed as ideological opposition. Scientific uncertainty is presented to the public with a confidence that the underlying evidence does not always justify.

One of the clearest examples of this is the debate over the physiological effects of MAiD medications. Public discussion of this issue gained momentum following the work of Dr. Joel Zivot, an American anesthesiologist and expert in lethal injection pharmacology, who raised concerns during testimony before the Canadian Senate in 2021 as Canada was considering the expansion of its MAiD regime to include individuals whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable. Zivot questioned whether the drug protocols used in assisted dying may, in some cases, lead to rapid fluid accumulation in the lungs—a condition known as pulmonary edema, which impairs oxygen exchange and, in severe cases, may produce a dying process he described as more akin to drowning.

His testimony raised an important question: how much do we actually know about the physiological effects of MAiD medications during the dying process?

Recently, I came across a Substack article from a MAiD advocacy platform criticizing military veteran and MAiD critic Kelsi Sheren for raising concerns about pulmonary edema during assisted dying. In dismissing those concerns, the authors wrote: “Perhaps the most common and harmful example is her claim that the MAiD medications cause fluid to build up in the lungs and cause the person to drown—which is completely untrue.”

I found that statement deeply troubling—not simply because I disagree with it, but because I possess evidence that directly challenges it.

Through Freedom of Information records, I obtained documentation of the precise medications and dosages administered to end my mother’s life. The protocol was neither unusual nor experimental. It matched the standard intravenous drug regimen recommended by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP).

I also possess something extraordinarily rare in a MAiD case: an autopsy.

Because MAiD deaths are generally classified as expected deaths with a known cause, autopsies are seldom performed. As a result, post-mortem evidence examining the physiological effects of MAiD medications in real-world settings remains remarkably limited.

My mother’s autopsy documented pulmonary edema.

Whatever conclusions one draws from a single case, it leaves little room for absolutism.

I am not suggesting this proves pulmonary edema occurs in every MAiD death, nor that every patient experiences conscious respiratory distress. It does, however, establish an important point: pulmonary edema can occur after the administration of standard MAiD medications.

That makes the assertion that such concerns are “completely untrue” difficult to defend.

A more intellectually honest position would be to acknowledge that we do not yet know how often pulmonary edema occurs during MAiD, under what circumstances it develops, or what clinical significance it may carry, largely because the research simply has not been done.

I have attempted to engage directly with the authors of this Substack on this issue. I approached them in good faith, outlining the evidence in my possession and raising what I believe are legitimate questions about the physiological effects of MAiD and the troubling lack of meaningful clinical research in this area.

What I encountered was not curiosity, but defensiveness. And that, in many ways, captures the deeper problem.

Increasingly, I see advocacy groups, institutions, and stakeholders responding to questions about MAiD not by openly examining potential flaws in the system, but by protecting the system from scrutiny. The impulse is not to ask what might be missing from our understanding, but how confidence in the existing narrative can be preserved.

This is a pattern I know intimately. My family experienced it repeatedly after my mother’s death. Over time, I came to recognize this pattern as a form of institutional gaslighting. Not overt manipulation, but something subtler: selective framing, strategic omission, and unwavering certainty in areas where meaningful uncertainty remains.

The effect is profound. People begin to question what they witnessed, what they know, and whether their observations are legitimate—not because the evidence disproved them, but because the dominant narrative leaves no room for competing truths.

That principle matters profoundly in medicine, where progress has never depended on the defence of existing assumptions, but on the willingness to question them. Medicine advances because clinicians and researchers remain open to anomalies, willing to investigate uncomfortable evidence, and humble enough to acknowledge the limits of current knowledge. Ethical systems should demand no less of themselves.

That is why the growing defensiveness surrounding MAiD concerns me. Any system empowered to intentionally end life carries an extraordinary burden of accountability. Public trust in such a system cannot rest on polished messaging or categorical reassurance; it must be earned through transparency, rigorous scrutiny, and a genuine willingness to examine where safeguards may fail.

What concerns me most is not disagreement, nor even criticism. It is the gradual normalization of a culture in which difficult questions are treated as threats rather than as necessary components of ethical oversight. Once that happens, the goal subtly shifts. The priority is no longer understanding what is true, but preserving confidence in what is already believed.

That is a dangerous place for medicine—or for any institution entrusted with irreversible decisions—to operate.

The euthanasia committee got it right on mental illness. Parliament must go further.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

The Globe and Mail published an article by Dr Ramona Coelho, on June 29, 2026. 

Dr Coelho is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Western Ontario's Schulich School of Medicine and a past member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee.

Dr Coelho, who has written extensively on Canada's euthanasia law begins her article by explaining how the law is not protecting Canadians. She writes:

Thomas Dillon’s MAID assessment took place in 2023 outside a Tim Hortons in St. Thomas, Ont., after a psychiatrist had raised the option with him. He died at age 45, with his mental illness and addictions largely untreated. The MAID law was not precise enough to prevent cases like his – and that is a problem.

Dr Coelho continues by explaining the decision of Canada's parliamentary MAiD committee:

Canada’s parliamentary committee has recommended indefinitely pausing the 2027 planned expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID) where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. I testified at the committee. The recommendation is necessary, but Parliament must go further. The mental illness debate has exposed a problem that runs through the whole MAID framework.

The debate over MAID for mental illness has focused on several concerns, including the impossibility of reliably determining whether mental illness is irremediable, and the significant role that community life and supports play in recovery. We also cannot distinguish a “reasoned MAID request” from suicidality, leaving assessments without an objective standard, and therefore allowing bias to shape who accesses MAID versus suicide prevention and care.

Euthanasia proponents believe that physical and psychological suffering should be viewed in the same manner. Coelho suggests that a deeper problem is how uncertainty is addressed across MAID decision-making. Coelho explains:

In my work as a family physician serving marginalized patients, and as a former member of Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee (MDRC), I have seen similar uncertainty extend beyond MAID for solely psychiatric illness. In one MDRC case, a socially isolated woman with severe obesity and depression was deemed eligible for MAID after refusing any diagnostic workup or treatments that might have improved or reversed her condition. Eligibility was not shaped by a clear disease trajectory but by treatment refusal and disengagement from care, with neglect interpreted as irremediability.

In another, a man in his 70s with essential tremor, which is not typically considered to cause a serious decline in capability, was approved for MAID, despite his request being mainly driven by spousal bereavement.

In both these cases, a chronic, manageable condition became grounds for death once isolation, poverty or lack of care entered the clinical picture. That is structural ableism – the institutional assumption that living well with disability is impossible, leading clinicians to view death rather than support as the more appropriate response.

Dr Coelho then comments on the Track 2 euthanasia Ontario data:

Ontario data from Track 2 MAID – the option for those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable – confirms these concerns extend beyond individual cases. Nearly 30 per cent of Track 2 recipients were living in poverty, were less likely to have family members listed as their next of kin, and most were not offered mental-health, disability, housing or income supports. These patterns point directly to problems with the architecture of the law itself.

Dr Coelho explains that determination of a Track 1 euthanasia death ranges from 6 month prognosis to a 5 year prognosis, which means that euthanasia assessments are very uncertain at best and applying the same level of uncertainty to mental health assessments would be incredibly problematic. She then makes some suggestions for future parliamentary sessions.

As Parliament considers the next phase of MAID legislation, it must confront whether the law’s central concepts are precise. Avoiding unnecessary deaths requires clear statutory definitions of “reasonably foreseeable natural death,” “grievous and irremediable,” and “intolerable suffering,” along with oversight to stop interpretive drift and doctor-shopping. It requires restoring minimum waiting periods under Track 1 and introducing a real-time mechanism to pause MAID assessments when concerns are raised by families or clinicians.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for changes, including repealing Track 2 MAID due to risks related to discrimination and social vulnerability. When a system cannot reliably protect those most likely to be harmed, it should not be allowed. Track 2 is exactly that.

Dr Coelho ends her article by reminding the readers that euthanasia was legalized in Canada as an exemption to homicide. She states: 

The least we owe Canadians is a law that makes wrongful deaths harder, not easier.

Previous articles by or related to Dr Ramona Coelho (Articles Link).

Canada's disabled deserve supports, not faster path to death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Krista Carr

Krista Carr, the CEO of Inclusion Canada had a special article published in the London Free Press on June 15, 2026.

This article was published two days before the report of the Special Joint Euthanasia Committee report recommending that the Canadian government not extend euthanasia to mental illness alone.

Carr explains that the Canada's original euthanasia law that was passed in 2016 was essentially limited to people with a terminal condition who were suffering.

Carr suggests that most Canadians believe that the law remains the same, but in fact Canada's law was expanded in 2021 to include people with disabilities who are not terminally ill. Carr explains:

But Canada’s MAID framework has evolved significantly since then. In 2021, Parliament expanded the law through Bill C-7, creating two pathways for assisted death. The first pathway applies to people whose natural death is imminent and expected soon (reasonably foreseeable).

The second — known as “Track 2” — allows separate access to MAID for individuals with disabilities who are not dying.

This expansion fundamentally changed the scope of assisted dying in Canada.

Track 2 means that assisted suicide may be available to people living with disabilities even when they are not nearing the end of life. Thousands of Canadians have already accessed MAID through this pathway. Between 2021 and 2024, a total of 2,050 people died from Track 2 MAID.

Carr explains the significance with expanding the law.

People with disabilities and disability organizations across the country have warned that Track 2 creates serious risks. Many individuals seeking MAID have described suffering related not to medical conditions alone but to poverty, housing insecurity, social isolation or lack of disability supports.

These are not medical failures. They are social failures.

For people with intellectual disabilities and many others in the disability community, the concern is straightforward: no one should feel that assisted suicide is easier to access than the supports needed to live with dignity.

Carr suggests that Canada's euthanasia law combined with homelessness, poverty and a gap in disability supports, combined poor access to mental health and community supports has created a serious problem for people with disabilities. Carr writes:

Against this broken backdrop, expanding assisted death beyond end-of-life situations risks sending a troubling message — that the suffering created by social inequality can be addressed through assisted suicide rather than social reform.

And now Parliament is once again debating whether to expand MAID further to also include mental illness. But what happened to suicide prevention? Are people with disabilities not entitled to the same suicide prevention as everyone else?

Carr then comments on the recent parliamentary hearings by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Aid in Dying, that yesterday recommended to parliament that euthanasia for mental illness not be implemented in Canada. Carr continued

Legitimate questions have been raised about whether Canada’s current framework adequately protects people who are living with structural disadvantage. 

These questions are now before the courts. A coalition of disability organizations, including Inclusion Canada, has launched a Charter challenge arguing that Track 2 violates equality rights and the right to life guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case asks whether Canada’s laws are discriminating against people with disabilities by allowing assisted death in circumstances where death is not imminent. 

Canadians should agree on one principle: people with disabilities deserve the same commitment to dignity, support and opportunity as anyone else. 

Persons with disabilities deserve the same response other Canadians receive when they are suffering: investment in supports, housing, and mental health services, not a faster path to death. Our politicians should be helping people live meaningful lives, not end them.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the challenge by Inclusion Canada to eliminate Track 2 euthanasia (people who are not otherwise dying). We agree that Canada's euthanasia law focuses on killing people with disabilities with Track 2 cases being exclusively for people with disabilities.

We also thank Krista Carr and Inclusion Canada for their leadership. 

Mental illness will be indefinitely excluded from euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians was released on June 17, 2026, which is also the 10th Anniversary of the legalization of euthanasia in Canada.

The AMAD Committee decided whether Canada should implement euthanasia for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition on March 17, 2027.

The report concluded:

That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

It is great news that the AMAD Committee has decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental illness, but the battle is not over. 

EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision that would approve Brosseau for death by lethal poison based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving that Brosseau be killed.

Even though the parliamentary committee is recommending that euthanasia for mental illness be indefinitely excluded from the law, a judge may legislate from the bench that Brosseau, and in turn others, can be killed by euthanasia based on mental illness alone.

Marcus Powlowski (MP)

Marcus Powlowski, the co-chair of the AMAD Committee a Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River, and a physician provided some excellent insight into his reasoning in the report. He wrote:

In addition, although some, perhaps a majority, of MAiD providers assured us of their readiness to provide MAiD for mental illness, and the adequacy of existing safeguards, we also heard disturbing stories of questionable conduct by some MAiD providers. Given what we heard it is hard not to conclude that some providers take an exceedingly expansive interpretation of what constitutes "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability", what constitutes an "advanced state of irreversible decline in capability"; and what constitutes "enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable". Furthermore, we heard stories of doctors with a seemingly cavalier attitude towards ending a life. (page 64)

In his comments, Powlowski appears to agree with EPC that there needs to be a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law. The report recognized our statement to the Parliament Committee on May 5 by including our statement on page 28:

Alexander Schadenberg, of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, asserted that, rather than expanding MAID,

Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s euthanasia law is actually functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendments?

There were presenters that commented, at the parliamentary committee, on potential abuses associated with Canada's euthanasia law, but only EPC pointed out that parliament was required to provide a complete review of the law in 2020, but it never did. Sign our petition urging Canada's parliament to completely review the law. (Petition Link)

Secondly Powlowski suggests that, based on the language of the law, euthanasia for mental illness should never be permitted. He writes:

But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written. Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better. (page 64)

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is the private members bill that was introduced by Tamara Jansen (MP) to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

Now that the Parliamentary Committee on euthanasia has decided to prevent the expansion of euthanasia to mental illness alone, EPC once again urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

The best way to prevent euthanasia for mental illness is for parliament to pass Bill C-218. 

EPC Response: Government Committee says NO to Euthanasia for Mental Illness

Response to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying Report on Euthanasia for Mental Illness, as the sole criteria.

• Mental illness will be indefinitely excluded for euthanasia in Canada (Read).

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is pleased that the Canadian Government AMAD Committee has recommended that Canada not extend the law to include euthanasia for mental illness, as the sole criteria. Currently euthanasia for mental illness, as the sole criteria, is scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

The heads of Psychiatry at 13 Canadian medical schools called on the federal government to halt the expansion of assisted dying to people whose sole condition is mental illness. Their letter to the AMAD Committee stated:

...there is no accurate way to determine when a mental disorder is incurable, no way to distinguish between suicidality and a MAID request, and no way to adequately protect vulnerable patients.

“People can and do recover from prolonged suffering related to mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use when provided with appropriate, evidence-based treatments and supports,”...

A letter from 90 disability rights groups, including the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, to the AMAD committee stated:

In its 2025 Concluding Observations on Canada, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities called on Canada to repeal Track 2 MAiD, halt the planned expansion to mental illness and bring its MAiD regime into compliance with Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Dr Paul Saba

Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine QC, said that:

90 percent of people who die by suicide have a mental disorder at the time that they end their lives. Most who attempt or complete suicide do not truly want to die - they want to escape their emotional distress.

A Harvard School of Public Health study found that 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide but survived did not die by suicide after receiving treatment. With proper care, the desire for suicide often disappears.

I have given my life caring for people at their lowest. What I've learned is that True Compassion means supporting people through their dark times, not ending their lives.

We are pleased that the AMAD Committee is recommending that euthanasia for mental illness, as the sole criteria, not be implemented. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition now calls on the AMAD Committee to do an in-depth complete review of Canada's euthanasia law, especially now that it has been operating for 10 years.

The EPC presentation to the AMAD Committee on May 5 stated that Canada needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law, which was actually part of the original euthanasia law that was implemented in June 2016. I stated:

...Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.

The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

Canada has surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization. Many of these deaths have been controversial and were outside the original intent of the law.

The EPC urges the government to consider the many stories associated with our euthanasia law that have been publicized world-wide and recognize that the law needs to be reviewed.

We look forward to presenting to the AMAD Committee when they provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.

Parliamentary Committee to recommend no expansion of euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sharon Kirkey reported in the National Post on June 15, 2026 that the Special Parliamentary Euthanasia Committee will recommend that the Canadian government not expand euthanasia for mental illness alone. 

When Canada passed Bill C-7 in March 17, 2021, one of its provisions was the expansion of euthanasia for the sole criteria of mental illness. The federal government has delayed euthanasia for mental illness alone several times. 

Currently, on March 17, 2027 doctors and nurse practitioners will be allowed to kill patients, by lethal poison, when their sole underlying condition is a mental illness. The new parliamentary report that will be released on June 17, 2026. It will recommend that euthanasia for mental illness alone be indefinitely paused.

Bill C-7 expanded euthanasia for people who do not have a terminally condition, but had a grievous and irremediable medical condition and the law was expanded to permit euthanasia for an incompetent person, as long as that person had been previously approved for euthanasia.

In order to expand euthanasia to people who do not have a terminal condition a two track law was created. Track 1 is for people with a terminal condition who are approved with a same day death. Track 2 is for people who do not have a terminal condition but who could be approved with a 90-day reflection period. Track 2 euthanasia is essentially designed for people with disabilities and has caused the deaths of people who are living in poverty, are homeless, or have untreated medical conditions.

Kirkey reported:

A special parliamentary committee is expected to recommend that the federal government halt the expansion of MAID to those whose sole condition is a mental disorder, the latest development in a drawn-out and controversial chapter in the country’s assisted-death regime.

The joint committee of senators and MPs struck to revisit Canada’s preparedness for medical assistance in dying for those with mental illness alone is expected to recommend an “indefinite pause” on the expansion, two sources told National Post. They spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to speak on the committee’s behalf.

Kirkey also stated that a group of Senators plan to write a dissenting report.

The Special Committee on Euthanasia heard testimony from 44 witnesses, including a presentation by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and they received 32 briefs. Kirkey reported:

Sixteen current and former chairs of psychiatry departments across Canada, and more than 90 disability and mental health organizations, appealed to the joint committee to halt extending MAID to include mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition.

Kirkey noted that Québec and Alberta have specifically excluded euthanasia for mental illness alone through provincial guidelines and Nova Scotia indicated that they were ready to expand euthansia for mental illness alone.

On May 5, EPC presented to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Our presentation focused on the need to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law, which Bill C-14 (the bill that legalized euthanasia in Canada in 2106) had required.

There have been many controversial euthanasia cases lately including the euthanasia death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) on December 30, 2025 who had Type 1 diabetes. Kiano, who lived in Ontario, flew to Vancouver to be killed by Ellen Wiebe in a funeral home. Other recent controversial euthanasia deaths include James MacLean, of London Ontario, who approved a death at a Tim Horton's coffee shop. MacLean was also involved in a euthanasia death where he declared the man dead who wasn't dead, causing incredible distress for the family. (In this death MacLean used left-over euthanasia poison from previous euthanasia deaths.) In another case, a man cried out help me while being killed by euthanasia.

Tamara Jansen (MP) introduced Private Members Bill C-218, last year. If passed, Bill C-218 would prevent euthanasia for mental illness as the sole criteria. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges you to support Bill C-218.

Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he would follow the recommendations of the committee. It is unknown whether the Liberal government will introduce their own legislation or pass Bill C-218.

Parliamentary committee to deliver report on euthanasia for mental illness on June 17.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Globe and Mail reported on June 11 that the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying will be releasing their report on euthanasia for mental illness alone on June 17, which happens to be the 10th Anniversary of the legalization of euthanasia in Canada.

Register for the EPC Zoom event on June 17 at 2 pm (Eastern Time) (Link).

Stephanie Levitz, a senior reporter for the Globe and Mail, reported on June 11 that Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski, who is co-chair of the Parliamentary Committee, stated on June 10 that the committee had met for 4 hours on June 9 and has decided the outcome of the report.

Levitz reported that the committee members did not indicate the outcome of the report but the government has stated that they will follow the recommendations of the committee report.

Currently euthanasia for mental illness alone is scheduled to begin in Canada on March 17, 2027.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the parliamentary committee will recommend the reversal of the expansion of euthanasia to mental illness alone, but we also hope that this report will recommend a full review of Canada's euthanasia law, which was required in Canada's original euthanasia law but has never happened.

I had the opportunity to speak to the parliamentary committee on May 5, 2026 where I stated:

Instead of expanding MAiD further, Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

I concluded by stating:

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

Canada's parliament needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law.

Euthanasia doctors refuse to share the killing curriculum with Canada's parliament

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 5, 2026 I had the opportunity to speak before the Parliamentary MAiD Committee that is examining the expansion of Canada's euthanasia law to include people with the sole criteria of mental illness. Presenters are only given 5 minutes, so I presented on the need for Canada's parliament to do a full review of the euthanasia law.

The Parliamentary Committee is examining and making recommendations as to whether or not Canada should permit euthanasia for mental illness alone beginning on March 17, 2027. Prime Minister Carney has stated that he will institute the recommendations of this report.

Meagan Gillmore published an article for Canadian Affairs on June 4, 2026 concerning the fact that (CAMAP) the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers have refused to share the euthanasia training curriculum with the parliamentary committee. 

Gillmore explained that on April 14, the Parliamentary Committee agreed to ask CAMAP to share it's euthanasia training curriculum but CAMAP has not only not shared it's killing curriculum with the Parliamentary Committee, it has indicated that it will not share the curriculum.

Remember, CAMAP has been receiving more than 3 million dollars per year from the federal government to develop it's killing curriculum. Based on this reality, one would think that the federal government, in some way, actually owns the killing curriculum.

Gillmore reports why CAMAP has said no to providing the curriculum:

The module about MAID and mental disorders is a live online class, making it impossible to provide the committee with a copy of the curriculum, the association told Canadian Affairs in an email. 

CAMAP does not intend to make its curriculum public, the association also said.

“CAMAP recognizes that there is significant public interest and ongoing discussion regarding MAID and mental disorders,” CAMAP’s email says. 

“However, the purpose of the curriculum is not public advocacy or public education; rather, it exists to support health-care professionals in understanding and applying the existing legislative and clinical framework within their practice.”

This is a ridiculous response. The euthanasia for mental disorders module is only done online, so why can't they share a recording of this online class?

Why can't the Parliamentary Committee receive the guidelines for how CAMAP is supporting health-care professionals in killing people within the framework of their practice?

So what is CAMAP trying to hide?

There has also been significant criticism of the killing curriculum. Catherine Frazee, a disability leader and academic, who was part of the CAMAP curriculum team, resigned, along with two other members, based on serious problems with the killing curriculum. Gillmore reports:

Three resigned from a working group that developed a curriculum module to assess how vulnerability can impact MAID requests. In interviews with Canadian Affairs, they raised concerns that the curriculum ignored how homelessness and loneliness could impact a person’s MAID request. They also expressed concern that the MAID curriculum discouraged health-care providers from challenging patients’ negative views about their disability. 

The curriculum “presumes that disabled people’s lives are not just harder, but plausibly unlivable,” Catherine Frazee, an academic who resigned from the working group, wrote in an article published in an academic journal in April.

Gillmore stated that CAMAP shared the outline of topics but not the curriculum from each of the 8 killing training sessions. 

So why can't CAMAP share the curriculum with a Parliamentary Committee?

What does CAMAP have to hide?

How much money did the federal government give CAMAP to develop a killing curriculum?

Just to put the icing on the killers cake, last month Gillmore wrote about the CAMAP curriculum team members who had resigned, for an article that was published by Canadian Affairs on May 5, 2026. Gillmore reported Catherine Frazee outlining a few concerning cases:

In one case, a homeless, 19-year-old man with cerebral palsy who was fleeing an abusive home was approved. In another case, a young man with disabilities was approved after expressing fear that he would never have a family of his own.

Catherine Frazee

Gillmore explains why Frazee is concerned with the outcome of Canada's euthanasia law.

 Most assessors did not appear bothered by these cases, says Frazee. 

“It was that lack of hesitation or doubt that really troubled me,” said Frazee.

The curriculum included a fictitious scenario about a mother of young children who was recently paralyzed because of a spinal cord injury. The woman said she wanted MAID because she did not want someone to help her use the bathroom. 

The working group said that the woman’s distress over needing help from others was a personal value and should not be questioned, Frazee said.

Frazee was concerned that there was no discussion about challenging a patient’s negative attitudes about living with a disability. 

Frazee resigned from the CAMAP curriculum team in August 2023 when her suggestions for change were simply denied.

CAMAP’s killing curriculum, that they have refused to share with a Parliamentary Committee, is funded by Health Canada and accredited by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the Canadian Nurses Association.

The Canadian government needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law. Canada's euthanasia law is dangerous and insane.

90 disability and mental health groups call on parliament to halt euthanasia for mental illness.

May 25, 2026

Ottawa, ON — A group of more than 90 disability and mental health organizations from all provinces and territories are calling on Parliament to permanently halt the planned expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) scheduled to take effect on March 17, 2027.

(Note: The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition signed the Inclusion Canada letter)

The groups have sent an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser, and Health Minister Marjorie Michel. The letter was copied to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) comprised of MPs and Senators. The committee is currently studying whether to expand MAiD for people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It is poised to file a report before the parliamentary summer break.

The organizations are calling for the government to repeal the section of Canada’s MAiD law that establishes a timeline for legalization, commonly referred to as the “sunset clause.” Acting on this recommendation would result in a permanent exclusion of mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAiD.

Mental health-related disability is among the fastest growing disabilities in Canada. One in three Canadians will meet the criteria for a mental disorder during their lifetime, and suicidality is associated with many of these diagnoses.

Inclusion Canada is one of the national organizations that have mobilized in this collective effort. CEO Krista Carr says the federal government should improve the lives of citizens – not end them. It can do so through better income supports, safe and accessible inclusive housing, accessible mental health care, employment and other community-based services to allow people to live with dignity.

“People with disabilities and mental illness who face poverty, housing insecurity, social isolation, and barriers to timely health care need help and hope — not MAiD,” said Carr.

Growing Concerns About Track 2 MAiD

The organizations point to growing evidence that marginalized Canadians are disproportionately represented among those currently accessing the second pathway of MAiD.

Known as Track 2 MAiD, this pathway is available to people with disabilities whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Most recent federal data reveal six out of 10 people who died as a result of Track 2 MAiD were women. Many were also reported as living in low-income neighbourhoods, residing in long-term care, experiencing isolation or loneliness, perceiving themselves to be a burden, facing housing instability, or requiring psychosocial supports.

People with Mental Illness can already qualify for MAiD

Under the current law, people living with mental illness may already qualify for MAiD if they have a co-occurring illness, disease, or disability and meet existing eligibility requirements. Expanding the law further to include mental illness as the sole underlying condition would make assisted suicide available to people who are not near end of life and need not have a co-occurring physical condition.

The organizations warn this would represent “a significant and misguided expansion” of Canada’s assisted suicide regime. Experts have cautioned that, in practice, the definition of “mental illness” could encompass a broad range of mental disorders.

“While some argue that MAiD is distinct from suicide, Health Canada defines suicide as ‘the intentional act of ending one’s life,’” the organizations state in their letter. “MAiD for mental illness clearly falls under this umbrella.”

“Families across Canada are deeply worried about what this expansion would mean for people already struggling to access adequate mental health care, housing, income supports and community services,” said Moira Wilson, President of Inclusion Canada. “At a time when so many people are asking for help to live with dignity, Canada should not be expanding access to assisted death for those experiencing mental illness.”

Facts

From 2021 to 2024, 2,050 Canadians have died from through Track 2 MAiD, where their death was not reasonably foreseeable.

In its 2025 Concluding Observations on Canada, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities called on Canada to repeal Track 2 MAiD, halt the planned expansion to mental illness and bring its MAiD regime into compliance with Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Inclusion Canada and three other national disability organizations along with two individual plaintiffs, launched a charter challenge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice asking that Track 2 MAiD be struck down.

About Inclusion Canada

Inclusion Canada is the national federation of 13 provincial/territorial member organizations and over 300 local associations working to advance the full inclusion and human rights of people with intellectual disabilities and their families. Inclusion Canada drives social change by strengthening families, defending rights, and transforming communities into places where everyone belongs. 

Media Contact

Andrew Holland, Director of Communications and Marketing
aholland@inclusioncanada.ca
(506) 259-1635

 

Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Canada needs to completely review it's euthanasia killing law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 reported euthanasia deaths since legalization in June 2016. Canada doesn't need to further expand euthanasia to people who are mentally ill but rather Canada needs to completely review its euthanasia killing program.

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link).

I have published more than one thousands articles on Canada's euthanasia law, a law that lacks effective oversight, a law that employs vague terminology, and a law that provides complete legal protection for doctors and nurse practitioners who are willing to kill people, even in cases that are completely egregious.

On May 5, I presented to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which is the parliamentary committee examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone in Canada.

Think about that - Euthanasia for the sole underlying condition of a mental illness.

My presentation to the Committee focused on the need to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law, which Bill C-14, the original bill that legalized euthanasia in Canada, required. I stated:

Rather than extending assisted dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s assisted dying law is functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendment? These questions have never been addressed.

I then spoke about several egregious Canadian euthanasia stories and explained:

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.

Yes. Canada's euthanasia law allows doctors and nurse practitioners to poison someone to death, and they are only required to be "of the opinion" that the person they killed fits the criteria of the law. Total protection for the killers.

Recently we learned of two disturbing euthanasia approvals and deaths by Dr James MacLean. As bad as it is that MacLean approved a euthanasia death while sipping Tim Horton's coffee (probably not good news for Tim Horton's) MacLean also developed an inappropriate relationship with his prey by continuously texting him and then driving him to his place of death.

Further to that MacLean poisoned to death another man in a disturbing manner, (not to say that euthanasia in general is not disturbing). According to the report:

The second complaint involved a cancer patient at end of life. The man had signed a “waiver of final consent” that allows people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID, even if they lose capacity to give consent the moment before death.

Before the chosen date, the man lost capacity and was unresponsive. MacLean was called to the home.

He’d ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

He brought a killing kit with him that he already had. Was it left-over from a previous killing???

The report continued:

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops.

But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

Shortly after administering the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, MacLean pronounced the patient dead, according to the college. After he left the house, “the patient resumed spontaneous breathing.”

So MacLean poisoned an incompetent man. He declared the man dead, when he wasn't dead. He left the scene of the killing. He was told that the victim wasn't dead so MacLean returned, saw signs of cardiac and respiratory activity, administered more medication (poison) along with the paralyzing agent, “and again pronounced the patient’s death.”

You can't make this stuff up.

Dr Ramona Coelho, a family physician in London Ontario and a past member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) was shocked that Dr MacLean only received a slap on the wrist for his killings. 

Dr Ramona Coelho

Coelho offered a way forward in an article that was published in the Hill Times. Coelho writes:

As Canada seemingly moves to halt medical assistance in dying for mental illness as a sole underlying condition, parliamentarians are beginning to recognize what clinicians and experts have warned for years: the system is not safe enough, and there is insufficient evidence to continue with Canada’s expansive MAID practice.

Halting MAID for mental illness is not enough.

Coelho provides some examples of egregious euthanasia killings. She writes:

In MDRC cases, eligibility determinations were shaped by treatment refusal, system gaps, and inadequate supports. In one case, an obese woman with depression and long-standing disengagement from care was deemed eligible for MAID after refusing interventions documented to potentially improve or reverse her conditions.

Another case involved a man in his late 40s who experienced significant suffering and unexplained functional decline following COVID vaccination. He had a history of depression and trauma, and experienced suicidal ideation requiring involuntary hospitalization. Psychiatric assessments raised concerns about mood disorder, trauma-related illness, and somatic symptom disorder. Despite this, he was deemed eligible for MAID, with assessors attributing his condition to a post-vaccine syndrome. Significantly, no pathological findings were identified on post-mortem examination.

Parliamentary hearings exposed a deeper problem: Canada already lacks adequate MAID safeguards and oversight.

In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization. The bill that originally legalized euthanasia required that a review of the law be done, starting in June 2020. Instead, Canada expanded the law by passing Bill C-7 in March 2021. 

Bill C-7 expanded Canada's law by removing the requirement that a person have a terminal condition (natural death be reasonably foreseeable), it removed the 10-day waiting period for killing, it permitted the killer to waive final consent, if the person was incompetent, and it allowed euthanasia for mental illness alone, that is currently scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

After passing Bill C-7 Canada established the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that did not review the law, as required by Bill C-14, but rather it examined further expansions of the law.

Canada's euthanasia law has gone mad. The world sees it, the United National Committee on Disability rights sees it, anybody who examines our law, from outside of the pro-death bubble sees it. 

The Canadian government must stop expanding the euthanasia law and examine the insanity. 

Canada needs a complete review of it's euthanasia law.