Let's call MAiD what it is: homicide.

The law classifies MAiD as a form of homicide—full stop.

Pro-death cult members desperately try to defend their belief that MAiD is safe, painless, and devoid of criminality—but let’s call it what it is.

It’s homicide.

First off, yes—homicide means the killing of a human being, whether lawful or unlawful. That’s not some tricky wordplay; it’s the legal and factual definition. It includes murder, but it also includes justifiable killings, self-defense, and yes, even MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying). Pretending that pointing out a correct definition is some kind of intellectual deception is laughable.

The truth doesn’t become a “manipulative language game” just because it makes you uncomfortable. Pro death members claim that using “homicide” is an appeal to emotion. No, it’s an appeal to reality. The law classifies MAiD as a form of homicide—full stop. The only reason it isn’t criminal is because of an explicit legal carve-out. If it didn’t require that exception, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because it would be prosecuted like any other case where one person ends another person’s life. They argue that common usage equates “homicide” with murder, and therefore using it in this context is misleading. That’s not how this works. Just because people have a surface-level understanding of a word doesn’t mean we should dumb down the conversation to fit their assumptions.

If we followed that logic, we’d be mislabeling all sorts of things just to fit popular misconceptions. Legal, medical, and ethical discussions require precise language—something you clearly want to avoid. Then there’s the laughable equivocation argument. They suggest that we should use the term “homicide” only as the public commonly understands it, not as the law actually defines it. That’s not a fallacy—it’s a basic requirement of intellectual honesty. If a doctor removes life support, yes, it can legally be classified under certain forms of homicide. If a soldier shoots an enemy combatant, that’s also a homicide.

That doesn’t mean all homicide is murder, and acknowledging legal reality doesn’t make anyone a manipulator—it makes them informed. Let’s talk about their MAiD “ultimate act” analogy. It falls apart the second you compare etymology to an active, current legal definition. No one is saying “homicide” based on some obscure historical meaning; we’re using it as it exists today. Their attempt to frame this as some sneaky linguistic trick is transparent and pathetic. And as for their smug little sign-off—yes, MAiD is the intentional ending of a human life. Yes, it is legally classified as homicide, with an exemption in criminal law. But let’s not pretend that’s an insignificant detail.

If MAiD were as morally neutral as they’d like to suggest, there wouldn’t be a need for special legal permission to perform it. You can’t just redefine ethical concerns out of existence because they make you uncomfortable. What’s actually happening here is that they don’t like the weight of the word “homicide” because it forces you to confront the gravity of what’s being done. So instead, they want to sanitize the language, pretend there’s no real moral dilemma, and attack anyone who refuses to play along.

Sorry, but I’m not here to make you feel better about state-sanctioned killing. I’m here to tell the truth. If MAiD is defensible, it should be defensible without hiding behind euphemisms. If you believe it’s justified, own it.

But don’t act like pointing out the reality of what’s happening is somehow an underhanded trick. That’s what weak arguments do.

Kelsi Sheren