On February 5, 2026, in the Canadian Parliament, Conservative MP Garnett Genuis tabled Bill C-260, which prohibits civil servants or others with authority from recommending assisted-suicide to anyone who has not asked about it.
Genuis cited “examples such as Canadian Armed Forces veteran David Baltzer…who was offered MAiD by Veterans Affairs Canada, as well as Nicholas Bergeron, a 46-year-old man from Quebec who was not interested in a medically facilitated death, but was ‘repeatedly’ pushed towards the option by a social worker.”
I can verify this government policy personally since a family member was encouraged without prompting to attend a seminar on how and why to kill himself.
Introduced in 2016, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is a federal program that can differ slightly from province to province. The core and constant concept: at the request of an eligible individual, the government administers death either by euthanasia through a lethal injection delivered by a clinician or by assisted suicide through self-administered medication that is facilitated by a clinician. An estimated 99% of MAiD cases involve euthanasia, not assisted suicide.
For one thing, the populous province of Quebec prohibits self-administration; in other provinces, health regions and care facilities perform only euthanasia or lean strongly in this direction. Perhaps government chose the acronym MAiD because Medical Euthanasia sounds jarring.
MAiD sets the extremely dangerous precedent of granting government the authority to kill an innocent person. The standard rebuttal to this argument is that the innocent person must request the “service” of suicide.
MAiD is not a uniquely Canadian issue. State-assisted suicide has spread quickly across the Western world. Currently (February 2026), over a dozen American states have legalized it in some form. In the UK, the Terminally Ill Adults Bill is at the Committee Stage in Parliament where it reportedly has 1,227 proposed amendments.
Some regions in Australia are also drawing up programs. The list of nations offering State-assisted suicide or euthanasia scrolls on and on, including Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, New Zealand…The same concerns and debates surrounding MAiD bear directly on these other programs, especially as MAiD is often referenced as a model or as a cautionary tale.
I view MAiD as a cautionary tale.
Medical personnel may have religious or other ethical objections to administering MAiD. Perhaps they view euthanasia as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “First, Do No Harm.” For many, these 4 words form the backbone of medical ethics. Canada does not force doctors or nurse practitioners to administer MAiD, but the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) explains that “holding a conscientious objection to MAiD does not negate these obligations.
Rather, it activates alternative duties to discuss the objection with the patient and to refer or transfer the care of the patient to a non-objecting clinician or other effective information-providing and access-facilitating resource.” This forces the practitioners to participate in the MAiD system to which they may strenuously object. Equally, some taxpayers may consider MAiD to be a form of murder that is covered by tax-funded health care. They may be as repulsed by having to pay for MAiD as much as many pro-life advocates detest having to finance abortions.
All assisted-suicide nations will confront certain practical questions; for example, all programs need to answer “what constitutes consent, and how is it documented?”
A sketch of how these general practical problems surfaced in Canada gives insight.
The original 2016 legislation (Bill C-14) provided safeguards to ensure applicants were eligible for MAiD. An amendment in 2021 (Bill C-7) established a two-track system of qualifications: Track 1 and Track 2. What is now called Track 1 is for people with an advanced condition whose natural death is deemed to be “reasonably foreseeable.” To be accepted in MAiD, the applicant requires the approval of 2 clinicians; it used to require a mandatory waiting period but this was lifted by Bill-C7 in 2021.
Increasingly, the media and public have been asking whether the safeguards are being applied or are inadequate. A recent MAiD case has drawn particular attention to the question. A woman in her eighties, identified as Mrs. B. was handled as a Track 1 patient for whom 2 assessments are required. Mrs. B. received 3 because the first assessor reported that the elderly woman preferred palliative care which had been essentially denied. Mrs. B. also expressed religious objections to suicide.
The clinician believed this disqualified her as a candidate. Nevertheless, her husband complained of having “caregiver burnout” and secured additional assessments by 2 more obliging clinicians. MAiD was approved for Mrs. B. When the first assessor asked to re-interview Mrs. B, she was refused access. Mrs. B’s death was processed.
The case raises questions. The husband seemed to be present at all 3 assessments even though no one but the applicant can make a request or should influence the process. Did his presence silence her or otherwise alter the results? Were the husband’s hardships given priority over Mrs. B.’s? Why was she denied the palliative care she preferred? Was she given a chance to revoke her initial consent? And, if MAiD prioritized safeguards, why would it deny the 1st clinician’s request to re-interview?
An article entitled “Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying: Provider Concentration, Policy Capture, and Need for Reform” recently appeared in The American Journal of Bioethics (Volume 25, 2025 – Issue 5). The authors—Christopher Lyon of the University of York, Trudo Lemmens of the University of Toronto, and Scott Y.H. Kim M.D. of the National Institutes of Health—state, “there have been, and continue to be, a significant number of troubling cases of MAiD, including cases reported in the media where the requestor did not want to die but found MAiD far more accessible than basic, standard resources (their first choice) that would have offered treatment or made their suffering bearable.”
Canada’s allegedly ‘universal’ health care was unable or unwilling to render the standard services that Mrs. B. would have chosen life over death. The system may have been “unable” to do so because public health care tightly rations its scarce services, which means many people are turned away or left to die on a long waiting list. Private care is not always possible; if it is available, it can be very expensive, prohibitively far away and selective in the patients accepted. The system may have been “unwilling” to provide basic standard service because patients with serious chronic conditions are expensive in terms of treatment, time and money.
And, so, the medical professional decided she was not worth the trouble. Instead of easing and extending life—as the Hippocratic Oath instructs—the system offered death. Other nations with a degree of tax-funded health care—and this is most Western nations—suffer from similar problems. On January 25, 2026, Spiked Online (UK) ran an article entitled “The assisted-suicide bill is class warfare at its ugliest.” The author, Dan Hitchens inserted two unusually candid quotes:
In 2024, Matthew Parris cheerfully wrote in the Times that, ‘Our culture is changing its mind about the worth of old age.’ He rejoiced that while, ‘Your time is up,’ might ‘never be an order,’ he conceded that ‘the objectors are right,’ it ‘may one day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands.’ We can’t afford to do anything else, Parris believes. Similarly, the New Statesman’s Oli Dugmore enthused last year that assisted suicide would bring down ‘the pensions bill, the NHS bill and the care bill,’ and would relieve us of the old folk who sit in care homes ‘unvisited by relatives who are preoccupied by the rhythm of their lives, or perhaps unable to summon the courage to witness the degeneration of the once totemic figures of their lives, their mum and dad. Let them die.’
Track 2 of MAiD is a further step toward freeing the Canadian health system and economy by extending MAiD to broader categories of people. Track 2 applies to individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including disabilities. This is a considerable expansion of governmental authority.
It may soon expand more. Today, mental illness alone does not make a person eligible for MAiD, although such eligibility is legally slated to be available in March 2027. It may come sooner, however, due largely to the successful and high-profile actress Claire Brosseau, 48, being part of a lawsuit against MAiD. The Plaintiffs accuse MAiD of discriminating against the mentally ill because they are currently excluded. As of February 2026, Brosseau’s suit is still pending.
This is an alarming ‘mission drift’ that introduces people who may be unable to make informed decisions—that is, the mentally ill—into MAiD. The aforementioned essay “Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying” states, “In more recent years…there have been well documented cases of people using MAiD as a way to end a life of poverty, a disability, social isolation, or mental illness.” These are problems that health care and social networks used to address through healing, education, drugs, therapy, or community involvement.
Inevitably, some people protest, “Trust government! Trust the health care system!” Why? Government officials are revealed repeatedly to be egregious liars, and the medical ‘science’ of Covid lockdowns revealed as dogma. Trust now seems to be clueless and self-destructive, especially when the topic at hand is literally a matter of life and death.
So far, a main obstacle to MAiD’s acquisition of credibility comes from the program itself. How can you judge if and to what extent MAiD has been abused when the data it releases is sparse and not informative? It is not as though there is a means of independent verification. In part, the non-transparency is due to the anonymity and privacy laws applying to medical records, which can prevent coming to an informed conclusion.
Consider just one small category of MAiD data to which the government has total access: federal inmates. In a December 29, 2025 article, The Post Millennial reports that at least 15 federal inmates had died by MAiD since 2018. The article comments on an Order Paper response—that is, an official, written government reply to a question submitted by a Member of Parliament or a Senator.
An Order Paper response confirmed by the Correctional Service of Canada shows the inmates died before completing their prison sentences. The records indicate two inmate deaths by MAiD in 2018, followed by one each in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The number rose to four in 2022, dropped to one in 2023, increased again to four in 2024, and one additional death has been recorded so far in 2025.
The data does not identify where the deaths occurred, the sex of the inmates, or the specific reasons for the requests. It also does not indicate whether the deaths fell under Track 1…or Track 2 cases…
It becomes impossible to know if these MAiD cases followed federal requirements or were a way to rid the prison system of expensive inmates.
The expansion of MAiD shows no signs of waning. In 2022, for example, the Quebec College of Physicians (CMQ) suggested including gravely ill or extremely deformed babies into people eligible for MAiD. This would sidestep the much-touted requirement of patient’s informed consent, of course, since newborns cannot understand or communicate. And, yet, the CMQ reaffirmed its position in 2025. Canada now permits only the withdrawal of life-support for critically ill infants, not the act of killing them. The CMQ assures the public that euthanasia of newborns would be rare, of course. But would it be? MAiD has grown so dramatically in the past decade that 1 in every 20 deaths in Canada are attributed to the aggressive program.
Quebec has also led the way in using advance requests for MAiD. This request is from a person who has an incurable illness that will lead to some form of incapacity; Alzheimer’s is often given as an example. The advance request is made when the person is still mentally competent; MAiD is administered when he becomes mentally incompetent. Again, this raises questions about consent; what if the person changes his mind? Will the clinician disregard an Alzheimer’s patient who resists at the final moment? Will a family member with medical guardianship be able to override MAiD?
Most of the concerns raised have been practical ones, which leaves open the door for reforming the system to prevent the abuses, errors, and overreach. I don’t think reform is possible. The economic incentives in a tax-funded health system are strongly in favor of MAiD; the system is already ‘overly burdened’ by the elderly and chronically ill whose absence would be welcomed.
Moreover, no one knows what the rates of abuse, error, and overreach are. Under what may be the guise of privacy, the government can indefinitely hide the evidence of such abuse, error, and overreach. Once tax-funded and rationed health care is coupled with a public acceptance of euthanasia that is conducted with next to no transparency, a bad outcome seems inevitable.
To complicate matters, MAiD is not merely a means of saving money; it may also be a significant means of making it. The Legal Insurrection website (January 13, 2026) notes that some of MAiD patient’s organs are harvested for ‘donation.’ Raising the topic of “organ tourism,” the Legal Insurrection continues,
I wasn’t the only one who noticed, either. The U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership is now sharply criticizing Canada’s MAiD program, which is now linked to organ donation, with one top official calling it a ‘strange new horror’ and a cautionary example for other countries. U.S. Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill said that Canada’s permissive assisted-suicide regime has ‘crossed ethical boundaries’ by helping drive up organ donation rates from people who die via euthanasia.
The phrase “strange new horror” comes from a January 8, 2026 interview with the Washington Examiner in which O’Neill explained how disturbed he was “to learn that Canada’s physician-assisted suicide program…has enabled it to become a world leader in organ transplant policy from deceased donors.” Some consider O’Neill’s concerns about MAiD to be wildly exaggerated and attribute part of the increase in Canadian organ transplant to other sources. For example, Nova Scotia is an automatic organ donor province. If a person doesn’t explicitly opt out of organ donation then, his viable organs will automatically be harvested and sold to other provinces or other countries.
It is not technically permitted to sell organs in Canada, but Revenue Canada notes that the expense of providing organ transplants can be written off, which is a form of remuneration. These expenses include “reasonable amounts paid to find a compatible donor, to arrange the transplant including legal fees and insurance premiums, and reasonable travel, board and lodging expenses for the patient, the donor, and their respective attendants.” Clearly, money changes hands. This opens another Pandora’s box of ethical questions.
The only path back from the medical dystopia of MAiD is to remove government involvement. I would like to say that those who choose death-by-government are within their rights. I can’t because such people are enabling oppressive laws and a medical bureaucracy that threaten the rest of society.
MAiD is a sea change in one of Canadian most important institutions—health care. Instead of extending life, hundreds of clinicians devote their skills to facilitating death. In turn, this causes a sea change in how many people view the health system.
As a Canadian, I am now unwilling to be candid with the doctors I visit or to answer all medical questionnaires. This is not paranoia. The last health survey I received had incredibly intrusive and unprecedented questions, including about my mental state. No one will keep this information away from the government that prepared the survey in the first place. How do I know it won’t be used against me in the future?
Of one thing, I am certain; government has no place in euthanasia or assisted-suicide. MAiD is not compassionate. It is not mercy killing. It is a cruel, uncaring bureaucracy looking after its own interests, as all bureaucracies do. Consider one more MAiD case. In March 2024, the quadriplegic Normand Meunier was administered MAiD as a result of a hospital visit in Quebec. “Before being admitted to an intensive care bed for his third respiratory virus in three months this winter,” the CBC explains. “Meunier was stuck on a stretcher in the emergency room for four days.”
Due to neglect, improper care surfaces, and inadequate repositioning, he developed such severe bedsores (pressure ulcers) that bone and muscle were exposed. The excruciating sores were deemed untreatable. Meunier, who had asked for help, decided not to live with the pain.
MAiD is a type of “Therapeutic Nihilism”—the belief that there is little hope of curing or significantly improving a patient’s condition and death is more appropriate. In Orwellian fashion, it redefines “Do no harm” into “It is best to kill the patient.” This nihilism ignores the common phenomena of misdiagnosis, the creation of breakthrough treatment, or the simple fact that many patients live for years and years beyond even a correct diagnosis. MAiD is the creation of a health system that cannot or will not provide “basic, standard” service.
Covid devastated the medical profession’s reputation. The shreds that remain will not survive MAiD. Nor should they.
Join the conversation:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
