Hey, Kelsi, I saw your today’s extravaganza with Jasmin on Youtube.
The way Canada handles MAiD suggests something most Canadians probably don't want to hear - they're basically being governed by a colonial administration. The nabobs are more concerned with per capita cost of health (and now death) than the fact that it is tearing apart what makes us a society. Providing palliative and end of life care has always been fundamental to our civilization, but that is being willfully dismantled.
I'm just going to point out that I invited you to have a reasoned conversation on MAiD in Canada, but you declined. The offer still stands. I'm not looking to smear you. I would love to chat about how we need to have better access to mental health care, including things like psilocybin and MDMA, as you wrote about in your last piece. But I'd also like to address some of the things you get completely wrong about MAiD, like your claim that people drown to death. Are you open to that conversation? We can start with all the things we agree on, like better access to care for veterans and folks with mental illness. Let me know any we'll set a date.
You do understand that you're asking for a 'reasoned conversation' about whether killing patients is appropriate in lieu of 'better access to care', right? You understand that when you say MAID, you are describing homicide by poisoning, right?
I want to be clear about what you’re saying. You believe that because I educate people about MAiD and support patients through their assisted death, I am an accessory to murder? That’s an extremely serious accusation, not a reasoned argument. If this is the level of discussion you want to have, then there’s nothing productive left to say.
No, I did not say murder (a crime) nor did I accuse you of 'being an accessory'. I said homicide (the neutral term for killing a person). I pointed out to you what MAID is under the euphemism, and reflected your argument back to you in a different lens.
But note the practice is only legal because physicians and nurse practitioners have been granted an exception to murder and aiding suicide in the Criminal Code, which recognizes that MAID by euthanasia is 'not culpable' homicide. Québec, by allowing advance directives, permits its MAID clinicians to commit what the Criminal Code still considers first degree murder, a culpable homicide. MAID by lethal injection is functionally and legally homicide.
Ok, fine. Yes, the legal definition of homicide is "when, directly or indirectly, by any means, [a person] causes the death of a human being." But let's not pretend that is how people actually use the word, and I’m fairly certain you know that.
If you tell someone a person’s cause of death was "homicide," they will almost certainly assume it was murder. That is the common understanding of the term. That’s why the show Homicide: Life on the Street is about murder—not because Culpable Homicide: Life on the Street just doesn’t have the same ring to it, but because "homicide" in everyday language is synonymous with criminal killing.
Under your interpretation, removing life support would be homicide. So would discontinuing tube feeding or IV hydration—common end-of-life decisions that no one describes as homicide in common usage.
Let me show you what you're doing. If I were to say, "MAiD is the ultimate act a doctor does for their patient," what would you think I meant? Most people would assume I’m saying it’s the best or most significant thing a doctor can do. But "ultimate" comes from the Latin "ultimātus," meaning furthest or last. So technically, what I’m really saying is that MAiD is the final act a doctor performs for their patient—just a factual statement with no emotional weight. If I then pretended I had only meant it in the Latin sense, I’d be playing a manipulative language game. And that’s exactly what you’re doing with "homicide."
If you believe MAiD is murder, then say that. But if your argument is just that MAiD fits a broad legal definition of homicide, then what’s your point? If it's to highlight that we use MAiD as some form of euphemism, let me save you the effort (and you can quote me here): MAiD is the intentional ending of a person's life. Want more? Yes, MAiD is legally homicide and only allowed because of an exclusion to the criminal code. Will that stop you from claiming we are hiding behind euphemisms? I doubt it.
What you are doing when you use the word homicide is often the sign of having a weak argument, and it relies on several logical fallacies:
Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Passiones)
- when someone manipulates emotions instead of presenting logical evidence, such as using emotionally charged language, like "homicide"
Equivocation Fallacy
- when a word with multiple meanings is used in a misleading way, like using a legal definition rather than common usage or understanding
Straw Man Fallacy
- misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, such as implying MAiD is akin to murder, rather than engaging with actual legal, medical, or ethical frameworks.
Circular Reasoning
- assuming the conclusion in the premise: "MAiD is homicide; homicide means murder; murder is wrong; therefore, MAiD is wrong."
I'm not the one avoiding a reasoned conversation here.
the killing of one person by another. See also culpable homicide,, justifiable homicide: he was charged with homicide | [count noun] : knives account for a third of all homicides.'
As I pointed out, I did not say 'murder', that is entirely you making that connection and running with it. MAID by euthanasia is inflicting death by lethal injection by another person, which is literally and legally homicide. I could say 'killing' too.
Where MAID may become murder, a criminal offence, is when the death is unlawful; that is, when the death is approved and provided outside the scope of eligibility criteria and safeguards. BC, Québec, and Ontario have all noted deaths involving failures to adhere to eligibility and safeguard criteria, and this possibility was raised by authorities in both my case and Alicia's. Other provinces don't publicly track those data.
And the history of assisted suicide and euthanasia activism is grisly and involves murders and murderers.
MAID must, by its nature, attract people who *want* to kill. Some MAID providers talk about the adrenalin high they get from ending people's lives, and the Sarco-pod inventor used to talk about his sexual arousal after the act.
Paul, my mother, Donna Duncan, ended her life through MAiD in 2021. I assume you’re familiar with her case, as it has been covered widely in the media since I began speaking out. Recently, I had her autopsy report reviewed, and like the patients in Dr. Joel Zivot’s research on lethal injection, her lungs were filled with fluid and remarkably heavy. With no lung conditions of note, it confirms she drowned to death like the death row inmates Kelsi speak about that you claim to be false. This evidence unequivocally contradicts the claim that MAiD drugs in Canada are fundamentally different from those used in the U.S.
You repeatedly dismiss any data that doesn’t fit your narrative while attacking others for presenting facts that challenge the system you support. You claim that statistics from those of us raising concerns are false, yet the reality is that MAiD providers in Canada self-report and are not required to disclose which drug combinations they use. So where exactly is your evidence that complications don’t occur? You don’t have it—because no one is required to track it.
It’s clear that you’re not interested in seeing the other side of this issue. You’re not here for an open discussion; you’re here to further an agenda while discrediting anyone who questions it. If you were genuinely committed to transparency, you’d acknowledge the gaps in reporting, the lack of oversight, and the very real risks that come with this system. But instead, you continue to push one-sided rhetoric while dismissing legitimate concerns.
So let’s cut through the noise. If you’re actually willing to have a real conversation—one where we address the dangers, the lack of research, and the need for greater accountability—I’m happy to discuss. But if all you’re going to do is smear those who challenge you while pretending your position is the only valid one, then let’s just call it what it is: propaganda.
Hello. If it is shown that I am participating in something that causes anyone to experience a death that is akin to drowning, I will stop immediately and walk away from this work. I would be horrified by that. But nobody has ever shown me evidence of that actually happening. I have talked to multiple anesthesiologists--who are not involved in MAiD--about the actual medication that are used for MAiD (not the entirely different meds that Dr. Zivot talked about), as well as peer-reviewed research of lungs inspected after MAiD (a process that is very similar to an autopsy), and I can't find any actual evidence to support the claim that MAiD causes drowning.
If anyone has that evidence I would love to see it. Nobody wants to cause that type of suffering, and every MAiD provider in this country would stop if that were proven to be true.
Given sufficient evidence I will change my mind. I've presented my evidence in my writing on Substack, including why Dr. Zivot's claims can't be taken seriously. If anyone has a scientific reason why I should reconsider what Dr. Zivot said, I would happily hear it.
Paul, you keep demanding evidence from everyone else, but let’s flip this around… Where is your evidence that the MAiD drug protocols have been rigorously researched and proven to be safe? Show me the clinical trials. Show me the long-term data. Show me the studies that confirm these drugs, in these doses, are 100% effective and free of complications.
You can’t. Because they don’t exist.
Meanwhile, here’s actual research from Oxford University Press that highlights the lack of safety data, the risks of complications like pulmonary edema, and the reality that clinician reporting on MAiD deaths is virtually non-existent:
This peer-reviewed medical journal explicitly states that the effectiveness and safety of these drugs remain unknown because the necessary research has never been done. There is no robust evidence confirming that the process is always free of complications and pulmonary edema. The exact issue you claim to have never seen proof of is a KNOWN risk.
You said, “If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it. Nobody wants to cause that type of suffering, and every MAiD provider in this country would stop if that were proven to be true.”
Would a peer-reviewed study from Oxford University Press be sufficient? Would a published medical journal acknowledging the lack of safety data, the absence of research on MAiD drug combinations, and documented risks like pulmonary edema count as evidence? Here it is. So, what now? If a peer-reviewed medical study and a direct, documented case don’t meet your standard for proof, then you’re admitting that you have no real standard for proof.
Your Substack posts claim MAiD is perfectly safe, but based on what? There are no regulations on dosage or drug combinations, no research on drug interactions, and no mandatory tracking—only self-reported data from MAiD providers.
No reputable medical journal would accept conclusions based on unverified, self-reported data. No regulatory body would allow it. Your arguments wouldn’t pass editorial review at a local newspaper or medical journal. I know this because every interview, podcast, article, and documentary about my mother’s case has been scrutinized. I must provide verifiable evidence, and legal teams review every detail before publication. Yet, you expect people to accept your claims without regulation, oversight, or actual data. You attack Kelsi for not providing evidence while offering cherry-picked “evidence” of your own. You don’t want actual evidence; you want confirmation of your beliefs. And when the documented consequences of these drugs contradict your narrative, you refuse to acknowledge them or resort to smear campaigns against those of us who attempt to hold you to the same standards journalists uphold, standards you lack because you’re a hack.
You claim there’s no proof that pulmonary edema occurs in MAiD deaths, yet you base that claim on 33 lungs inspected after MAiD. Thirty-three. Out of how many? Over 76,000 people have died by MAiD in Canada. That’s just 0.04%, which is nowhere near a sufficient sample size to make sweeping claims about safety. Do you have data on lungs that were rejected from the study? Conveniently, you don’t mention those. Show the entire evidence, Paul.
Now compare that to the research you dismiss. Dr. Zivot’s study examined 300 autopsies from lethal injection deaths. Eighty-six percent showed fluid-filled lungs consistent with pulmonary edema. That’s a significant finding. Yet you argue that reviewing just 33 lungs is enough to conclude safety while dismissing 86% as irrelevant? That’s not science. That’s cherry-picking.
You contradict yourself. You admit that autopsies on MAiD deaths aren’t routinely done, arguing that a handful of reports isn’t conclusive evidence—yet you present 33 cases of lungs inspected after a MAiD death before transplant as definitive proof that the drugs are safe. If there isn’t enough data from autopsies, then how can this minuscule sample size be conclusive? Either there’s insufficient evidence to draw conclusions, or you’re selectively using limited data to fit your narrative—you can’t have it both ways.
Meanwhile, those of us trying to expose the very real possibility of suffering in MAiD deaths have little access to autopsy reports because, as you yourself admit, they are not routinely conducted. You demand conclusive evidence from us, yet in your article attacking Kelsi, you claim you can prove there’s no fluid in the lungs based on just 33 examinations of transplant organ donations. The irony is glaring—33 cases out of more than 76,000 MAiD deaths is nowhere near enough to make sweeping claims about safety. You dismiss the need for broader investigation when it challenges your argument yet impose an impossible burden of proof on anyone raising concerns.
You said, “If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it.” Well, here it is. My mother’s autopsy is evidence. She drowned in her own bodily fluids because of the drugs used in MAiD. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is not a philosophical debate. This is what happened. And yet, you don’t even acknowledge it. You didn’t even acknowledge how horrific this is for our family to deal with. You claim to care about compassion, but only for the people you want to die—not for the families left behind who have to live with the aftermath.
After my mother died, do you know how many of the health authorities who pushed this so-called compassion reached out to my family? Zero. Not to check in. Not to offer support. Not to see how her death affected us. Nothing. Because the system that promises a “peaceful death” doesn’t care about the people left behind.
So don’t preach to us about compassion. Not when you prioritize autonomy over the lifelong trauma imposed on families. Not when you ignore objective evidence of harm. Not when you refuse to be held to the same standard you demand from others.
If you actually care about evidence, you have it now. So, Paul, what’s your next move?
Hi Alicia. Sorry about the delay. I've read the paper and I'm sorry to tell you that not only does it not say what you think it says, the authors aren't even claiming what you think they are. At least not about Canada. They do bring up some concerning facts about oral medication given without medical supervision, like they do in most American states. But none of those concerns apply to Canada, and the authors make that point. They even go out of their way to say how minor and infrequent the complications with IV medication are.
But I know what you're going to say. American executions showed fluid in the lungs. I've addressed why that's a terribly unscientific argument before, so if that's what you believe to be true, there is nothing I could ever say to convince you otherwise.
Paul, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I want to address a few key points.
First, you don’t know me, so how can you presume to know what my response will be? I’m not here to push an agenda—I’m in search of the truth. That search is based on my lived experience regarding my mother’s Canadian MAiD death. Her autopsy showed her lungs were filled with fluid, which is why I take these concerns seriously. I’m not relying on theoretical debates; I’m asking questions rooted in firsthand experience.
You claim that Canada’s MAiD protocols are well-monitored and safe, yet even Dr. Ellen Wiebe, one of Canada’s most prolific MAiD providers, has publicly stated that she cannot guarantee a peaceful death. She also admitted that better drugs exist but are illegal in Canada. If our current protocols were truly optimal, why would one of Canada’s most experienced MAiD providers say otherwise?
You dismiss concerns about awareness during MAiD by assuming that high doses of propofol eliminate the risk. But that’s just an assumption. The drugs used in MAiD are borrowed from anesthesia, and we know that even in controlled surgical settings, there is a documented percentage of intraoperative awareness—patients who are conscious but paralyzed and unable to communicate. If we apply the same statistical likelihood to MAiD, that suggests that approximately 60 to 120 Canadians may have been aware and in distress while dying by MAiD. The problem is, Canada does not monitor for this. Without EEG or brain activity tracking, there is no way to confirm whether patients are fully unconscious before being paralyzed.
You argue that Canada has sufficient oversight, but the reality is that clinician oversight is self-reported. There is no independent verification process, no mandatory postmortem studies, and no systematic research into whether patients experience distress. Belgium’s euthanasia system has a 52% underreporting rate—how do we know Canada’s isn’t similar? You cite 33 lung transplants as proof that MAiD does not cause fluid buildup in the lungs, but that data isn’t peer-reviewed or widely available, and 33 cases out of 70,000 deaths is not statistically significant. Canada does not require autopsies for MAiD patients, so how can we say with certainty what does or does not happen physiologically during the process?
This isn’t about arguing that every MAiD case results in suffering—it’s about demanding transparency and research. MAiD should be held to the same medical and ethical standards as any other procedure. We cannot assume it is always peaceful and painless without the data to prove it. The real issue isn’t that these complications are definitely happening—it’s that Canada is not conducting the research necessary to prove they aren’t.
So my question to you is this: if you’re so confident that MAiD is as safe and peaceful as you claim, why not push for independent oversight, postmortem studies, and better research? If MAiD is truly without issue, shouldn’t the data reflect that?
I’ll keep asking these questions, not because I want to "win an argument," but because my mother’s experience demands it.
High praise for you Alicia🙌. The medical cartel/mafia makes getting to the Truth cumbersome but you are well on your way. They can’t believe how smart we are😉 Keep going. I will if you will.💚
You've just been informed of Alicia's mother's autopsy suggesting something that sounds like pulmonary oedema, and you've doubled down on your dismissal. You continue to doubt.
One of the problems we have is that, yes, there is a lack of autopsy evidence on MAID deaths, but maybe now we have some. And an autopsy report isn't 'peer-reviewed'; they aren't published in journals and are often hard to access by researchers.
What we have are drugs used in quantities and combinations they weren't tested and designed for. No one interested in responsible clinical practice, patient safety, or side effects could support this practice. It is very reasonable to think that administering drugs off-label is utterly reckless, and we should *expect* the patient to be badly affected.
Indeed, the right-to-die movement for decades has messed around with uncontrolled lethal 'experiments' on vulnerable people trying different drugs, asphyxiating gases, and administration contraptions. The substances used in MAID are applied no differently.
Alicia, I feel great sympathy for what your family has suffered. After reading your post, I googled your mother’s name. I read this in one of the articles:
“At the request of their mother’s longtime doctor, an autopsy was held, and Christie said it showed there was nothing in her health that would have been fatal.
The girls want to ensure that any medical practitioner who delivered MAID without following protocols be criminally charged.
They pursued complaints against the people involved with the BC College of Physicians, but they deemed it a criminal matter.”
It seems to me that your mother did not actually receive MAiD, since the protocols were not followed. I am further sorry that this happened, and wonder if the various provinces have different protocols?
Having been present at two natural deaths, and hearing reports from close family members/ friends who were present at two MAiD deaths here in Ontario, I am very much a believer in MAiD as a personal choice, but only when protocols that I saw used in these personal experiences are followed, to ensure peaceful, painless, quick death.
Both subjects in the situations of my experience had numerous interviews, counselling sessions, and physician appointments from more than one provider, over a number of weeks and then again when the end approached. Both were required to involve at least one ‘next of kin’ in that process. I also know of one person who suffers from poverty and mental illness, who has applied twice, and after a series of meetings, been turned down, as it appears your mother should have been.
Is your fight to stop MAiD, or simply to ensure stricter protocols? It is quite unnerving to learn that intravenous death was provided so quickly and without, it seems, responsible oversight, in your mother’s case. Not only because that was not right, on any level, and to me it was very shoddy medical practice, to my mind malpractice, but because it brings a well, researched, carefully designed and needful program into question.
My aunt who chose MAiD did so after a decade as a hospice volunteer, having been present at many natural deaths, which are very often protracted and difficult, despite pain control.
Again, my sympathies for the grievous loss of your mother, which to me should have been subject to public scrutiny by regulatory boards in BC, and possibly criminal prosecution of the providers!
Thank you for your message and for taking the time to read about my mother’s case. I appreciate your sympathy and your willingness to engage in this discussion with an open mind.
To clarify—yes, my mother did receive MAiD. The issue my family has fought to bring to light is that the safeguards and protocols that should have been in place were not properly followed. While MAiD is intended to be a well-regulated process, what happened in my mother’s case raises serious concerns about oversight, transparency, and accountability.
My goal is not to stop MAiD, but to ensure that the process is upheld with the highest possible safeguards so that no mistakes are made and no one needlessly suffers due to poorly researched medications or rushed approvals. If there were a way to guarantee a truly painless, carefully considered, and ethically sound process every time, I could possibly be on board. However, ensuring that level of precision and protection seems nearly impossible, which is why I remain deeply concerned.
Your experiences with MAiD in Ontario highlight what the process should look like when properly followed. But my mother’s case, and many others like it, demonstrate that this is not always happening. That is why I continue to push for transparency, proper oversight, and accountability for those who fail to follow protocols.
Again, I truly appreciate you reaching out and engaging in this discussion. These conversations are important, and I welcome them.
You have really opened my eyes to the shortcomings I did not realize existed. I think I need to be much more active in learning about the reality which from your experience is clearly NOT being sufficiently safeguarded in some cases. This is unacceptable. Every Canadian, whether MAiD participant or family member, needs to be able to rely on strict protocols, and there should be criminal prosecution for lack of compliance. I believe in this program — but only within the strictest of guidelines, and most definitely not under circumstances like your mother’s case. Thank you for your activism!
Many thanks for your post and well said. I see 'Paul Magennis' who supports MAiD will anagram to 'am unpleasing'. This may explain some of his attacks.
Haha. That is so funny. Thank you for that. Three points:
1. I wish I knew this before. I'm definitely going to use that. I can't wait to tell my wife.
2. You folks literally make every mistake when trying to making an argument. That's what's called an ad hominem attack/fallacy, where you attack the person's character or attributes rather than their argument. It's yet another sign you have a weak argument.
3. Kelsi explicitly said there is no place for personal attacks in these conversations. She actually wrote an entire post about how doing so shows you have a weak argument. So you should expect her to take your comment down or ask you to retract that statement, right? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
Shit! I just realized it's literally this post by Kelsi accusing us of personal attacks that you chose to make a personal attack on me! Haha. You can't make this level hypocrisy up!
Hey, Kelsi, I saw your today’s extravaganza with Jasmin on Youtube.
The way Canada handles MAiD suggests something most Canadians probably don't want to hear - they're basically being governed by a colonial administration. The nabobs are more concerned with per capita cost of health (and now death) than the fact that it is tearing apart what makes us a society. Providing palliative and end of life care has always been fundamental to our civilization, but that is being willfully dismantled.
I'm just going to point out that I invited you to have a reasoned conversation on MAiD in Canada, but you declined. The offer still stands. I'm not looking to smear you. I would love to chat about how we need to have better access to mental health care, including things like psilocybin and MDMA, as you wrote about in your last piece. But I'd also like to address some of the things you get completely wrong about MAiD, like your claim that people drown to death. Are you open to that conversation? We can start with all the things we agree on, like better access to care for veterans and folks with mental illness. Let me know any we'll set a date.
You do understand that you're asking for a 'reasoned conversation' about whether killing patients is appropriate in lieu of 'better access to care', right? You understand that when you say MAID, you are describing homicide by poisoning, right?
Slow clapping this
I want to be clear about what you’re saying. You believe that because I educate people about MAiD and support patients through their assisted death, I am an accessory to murder? That’s an extremely serious accusation, not a reasoned argument. If this is the level of discussion you want to have, then there’s nothing productive left to say.
No, I did not say murder (a crime) nor did I accuse you of 'being an accessory'. I said homicide (the neutral term for killing a person). I pointed out to you what MAID is under the euphemism, and reflected your argument back to you in a different lens.
But note the practice is only legal because physicians and nurse practitioners have been granted an exception to murder and aiding suicide in the Criminal Code, which recognizes that MAID by euthanasia is 'not culpable' homicide. Québec, by allowing advance directives, permits its MAID clinicians to commit what the Criminal Code still considers first degree murder, a culpable homicide. MAID by lethal injection is functionally and legally homicide.
Ok, fine. Yes, the legal definition of homicide is "when, directly or indirectly, by any means, [a person] causes the death of a human being." But let's not pretend that is how people actually use the word, and I’m fairly certain you know that.
If you tell someone a person’s cause of death was "homicide," they will almost certainly assume it was murder. That is the common understanding of the term. That’s why the show Homicide: Life on the Street is about murder—not because Culpable Homicide: Life on the Street just doesn’t have the same ring to it, but because "homicide" in everyday language is synonymous with criminal killing.
Under your interpretation, removing life support would be homicide. So would discontinuing tube feeding or IV hydration—common end-of-life decisions that no one describes as homicide in common usage.
Let me show you what you're doing. If I were to say, "MAiD is the ultimate act a doctor does for their patient," what would you think I meant? Most people would assume I’m saying it’s the best or most significant thing a doctor can do. But "ultimate" comes from the Latin "ultimātus," meaning furthest or last. So technically, what I’m really saying is that MAiD is the final act a doctor performs for their patient—just a factual statement with no emotional weight. If I then pretended I had only meant it in the Latin sense, I’d be playing a manipulative language game. And that’s exactly what you’re doing with "homicide."
If you believe MAiD is murder, then say that. But if your argument is just that MAiD fits a broad legal definition of homicide, then what’s your point? If it's to highlight that we use MAiD as some form of euphemism, let me save you the effort (and you can quote me here): MAiD is the intentional ending of a person's life. Want more? Yes, MAiD is legally homicide and only allowed because of an exclusion to the criminal code. Will that stop you from claiming we are hiding behind euphemisms? I doubt it.
What you are doing when you use the word homicide is often the sign of having a weak argument, and it relies on several logical fallacies:
Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Passiones)
- when someone manipulates emotions instead of presenting logical evidence, such as using emotionally charged language, like "homicide"
Equivocation Fallacy
- when a word with multiple meanings is used in a misleading way, like using a legal definition rather than common usage or understanding
Straw Man Fallacy
- misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, such as implying MAiD is akin to murder, rather than engaging with actual legal, medical, or ethical frameworks.
Circular Reasoning
- assuming the conclusion in the premise: "MAiD is homicide; homicide means murder; murder is wrong; therefore, MAiD is wrong."
I'm not the one avoiding a reasoned conversation here.
'homicide | ˈhɒmɪsʌɪd |
noun [mass noun] mainly North American English
the killing of one person by another. See also culpable homicide,, justifiable homicide: he was charged with homicide | [count noun] : knives account for a third of all homicides.'
As I pointed out, I did not say 'murder', that is entirely you making that connection and running with it. MAID by euthanasia is inflicting death by lethal injection by another person, which is literally and legally homicide. I could say 'killing' too.
Where MAID may become murder, a criminal offence, is when the death is unlawful; that is, when the death is approved and provided outside the scope of eligibility criteria and safeguards. BC, Québec, and Ontario have all noted deaths involving failures to adhere to eligibility and safeguard criteria, and this possibility was raised by authorities in both my case and Alicia's. Other provinces don't publicly track those data.
And the history of assisted suicide and euthanasia activism is grisly and involves murders and murderers.
MAID must, by its nature, attract people who *want* to kill. Some MAID providers talk about the adrenalin high they get from ending people's lives, and the Sarco-pod inventor used to talk about his sexual arousal after the act.
Wow! You clearly can't talk about this topic rationally, so I'm going to disengage.
Paul, my mother, Donna Duncan, ended her life through MAiD in 2021. I assume you’re familiar with her case, as it has been covered widely in the media since I began speaking out. Recently, I had her autopsy report reviewed, and like the patients in Dr. Joel Zivot’s research on lethal injection, her lungs were filled with fluid and remarkably heavy. With no lung conditions of note, it confirms she drowned to death like the death row inmates Kelsi speak about that you claim to be false. This evidence unequivocally contradicts the claim that MAiD drugs in Canada are fundamentally different from those used in the U.S.
You repeatedly dismiss any data that doesn’t fit your narrative while attacking others for presenting facts that challenge the system you support. You claim that statistics from those of us raising concerns are false, yet the reality is that MAiD providers in Canada self-report and are not required to disclose which drug combinations they use. So where exactly is your evidence that complications don’t occur? You don’t have it—because no one is required to track it.
It’s clear that you’re not interested in seeing the other side of this issue. You’re not here for an open discussion; you’re here to further an agenda while discrediting anyone who questions it. If you were genuinely committed to transparency, you’d acknowledge the gaps in reporting, the lack of oversight, and the very real risks that come with this system. But instead, you continue to push one-sided rhetoric while dismissing legitimate concerns.
So let’s cut through the noise. If you’re actually willing to have a real conversation—one where we address the dangers, the lack of research, and the need for greater accountability—I’m happy to discuss. But if all you’re going to do is smear those who challenge you while pretending your position is the only valid one, then let’s just call it what it is: propaganda.
Hello. If it is shown that I am participating in something that causes anyone to experience a death that is akin to drowning, I will stop immediately and walk away from this work. I would be horrified by that. But nobody has ever shown me evidence of that actually happening. I have talked to multiple anesthesiologists--who are not involved in MAiD--about the actual medication that are used for MAiD (not the entirely different meds that Dr. Zivot talked about), as well as peer-reviewed research of lungs inspected after MAiD (a process that is very similar to an autopsy), and I can't find any actual evidence to support the claim that MAiD causes drowning.
If anyone has that evidence I would love to see it. Nobody wants to cause that type of suffering, and every MAiD provider in this country would stop if that were proven to be true.
Given sufficient evidence I will change my mind. I've presented my evidence in my writing on Substack, including why Dr. Zivot's claims can't be taken seriously. If anyone has a scientific reason why I should reconsider what Dr. Zivot said, I would happily hear it.
Paul, you keep demanding evidence from everyone else, but let’s flip this around… Where is your evidence that the MAiD drug protocols have been rigorously researched and proven to be safe? Show me the clinical trials. Show me the long-term data. Show me the studies that confirm these drugs, in these doses, are 100% effective and free of complications.
You can’t. Because they don’t exist.
Meanwhile, here’s actual research from Oxford University Press that highlights the lack of safety data, the risks of complications like pulmonary edema, and the reality that clinician reporting on MAiD deaths is virtually non-existent:
Efficacy and Safety of Drugs Used for ‘Assisted Dying’ https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/142/1/15/6580517
This peer-reviewed medical journal explicitly states that the effectiveness and safety of these drugs remain unknown because the necessary research has never been done. There is no robust evidence confirming that the process is always free of complications and pulmonary edema. The exact issue you claim to have never seen proof of is a KNOWN risk.
You said, “If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it. Nobody wants to cause that type of suffering, and every MAiD provider in this country would stop if that were proven to be true.”
Would a peer-reviewed study from Oxford University Press be sufficient? Would a published medical journal acknowledging the lack of safety data, the absence of research on MAiD drug combinations, and documented risks like pulmonary edema count as evidence? Here it is. So, what now? If a peer-reviewed medical study and a direct, documented case don’t meet your standard for proof, then you’re admitting that you have no real standard for proof.
Your Substack posts claim MAiD is perfectly safe, but based on what? There are no regulations on dosage or drug combinations, no research on drug interactions, and no mandatory tracking—only self-reported data from MAiD providers.
No reputable medical journal would accept conclusions based on unverified, self-reported data. No regulatory body would allow it. Your arguments wouldn’t pass editorial review at a local newspaper or medical journal. I know this because every interview, podcast, article, and documentary about my mother’s case has been scrutinized. I must provide verifiable evidence, and legal teams review every detail before publication. Yet, you expect people to accept your claims without regulation, oversight, or actual data. You attack Kelsi for not providing evidence while offering cherry-picked “evidence” of your own. You don’t want actual evidence; you want confirmation of your beliefs. And when the documented consequences of these drugs contradict your narrative, you refuse to acknowledge them or resort to smear campaigns against those of us who attempt to hold you to the same standards journalists uphold, standards you lack because you’re a hack.
You claim there’s no proof that pulmonary edema occurs in MAiD deaths, yet you base that claim on 33 lungs inspected after MAiD. Thirty-three. Out of how many? Over 76,000 people have died by MAiD in Canada. That’s just 0.04%, which is nowhere near a sufficient sample size to make sweeping claims about safety. Do you have data on lungs that were rejected from the study? Conveniently, you don’t mention those. Show the entire evidence, Paul.
Now compare that to the research you dismiss. Dr. Zivot’s study examined 300 autopsies from lethal injection deaths. Eighty-six percent showed fluid-filled lungs consistent with pulmonary edema. That’s a significant finding. Yet you argue that reviewing just 33 lungs is enough to conclude safety while dismissing 86% as irrelevant? That’s not science. That’s cherry-picking.
You contradict yourself. You admit that autopsies on MAiD deaths aren’t routinely done, arguing that a handful of reports isn’t conclusive evidence—yet you present 33 cases of lungs inspected after a MAiD death before transplant as definitive proof that the drugs are safe. If there isn’t enough data from autopsies, then how can this minuscule sample size be conclusive? Either there’s insufficient evidence to draw conclusions, or you’re selectively using limited data to fit your narrative—you can’t have it both ways.
Meanwhile, those of us trying to expose the very real possibility of suffering in MAiD deaths have little access to autopsy reports because, as you yourself admit, they are not routinely conducted. You demand conclusive evidence from us, yet in your article attacking Kelsi, you claim you can prove there’s no fluid in the lungs based on just 33 examinations of transplant organ donations. The irony is glaring—33 cases out of more than 76,000 MAiD deaths is nowhere near enough to make sweeping claims about safety. You dismiss the need for broader investigation when it challenges your argument yet impose an impossible burden of proof on anyone raising concerns.
You said, “If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it.” Well, here it is. My mother’s autopsy is evidence. She drowned in her own bodily fluids because of the drugs used in MAiD. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is not a philosophical debate. This is what happened. And yet, you don’t even acknowledge it. You didn’t even acknowledge how horrific this is for our family to deal with. You claim to care about compassion, but only for the people you want to die—not for the families left behind who have to live with the aftermath.
After my mother died, do you know how many of the health authorities who pushed this so-called compassion reached out to my family? Zero. Not to check in. Not to offer support. Not to see how her death affected us. Nothing. Because the system that promises a “peaceful death” doesn’t care about the people left behind.
So don’t preach to us about compassion. Not when you prioritize autonomy over the lifelong trauma imposed on families. Not when you ignore objective evidence of harm. Not when you refuse to be held to the same standard you demand from others.
If you actually care about evidence, you have it now. So, Paul, what’s your next move?
Thank you. I'll read it tonight and get back to you.
Hi Alicia. Sorry about the delay. I've read the paper and I'm sorry to tell you that not only does it not say what you think it says, the authors aren't even claiming what you think they are. At least not about Canada. They do bring up some concerning facts about oral medication given without medical supervision, like they do in most American states. But none of those concerns apply to Canada, and the authors make that point. They even go out of their way to say how minor and infrequent the complications with IV medication are.
But I know what you're going to say. American executions showed fluid in the lungs. I've addressed why that's a terribly unscientific argument before, so if that's what you believe to be true, there is nothing I could ever say to convince you otherwise.
Here is the link to a full response if you want to read it. https://maidincanada.substack.com/p/when-proof-isnt-proof-at-all
Paul, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I want to address a few key points.
First, you don’t know me, so how can you presume to know what my response will be? I’m not here to push an agenda—I’m in search of the truth. That search is based on my lived experience regarding my mother’s Canadian MAiD death. Her autopsy showed her lungs were filled with fluid, which is why I take these concerns seriously. I’m not relying on theoretical debates; I’m asking questions rooted in firsthand experience.
You claim that Canada’s MAiD protocols are well-monitored and safe, yet even Dr. Ellen Wiebe, one of Canada’s most prolific MAiD providers, has publicly stated that she cannot guarantee a peaceful death. She also admitted that better drugs exist but are illegal in Canada. If our current protocols were truly optimal, why would one of Canada’s most experienced MAiD providers say otherwise?
You dismiss concerns about awareness during MAiD by assuming that high doses of propofol eliminate the risk. But that’s just an assumption. The drugs used in MAiD are borrowed from anesthesia, and we know that even in controlled surgical settings, there is a documented percentage of intraoperative awareness—patients who are conscious but paralyzed and unable to communicate. If we apply the same statistical likelihood to MAiD, that suggests that approximately 60 to 120 Canadians may have been aware and in distress while dying by MAiD. The problem is, Canada does not monitor for this. Without EEG or brain activity tracking, there is no way to confirm whether patients are fully unconscious before being paralyzed.
You argue that Canada has sufficient oversight, but the reality is that clinician oversight is self-reported. There is no independent verification process, no mandatory postmortem studies, and no systematic research into whether patients experience distress. Belgium’s euthanasia system has a 52% underreporting rate—how do we know Canada’s isn’t similar? You cite 33 lung transplants as proof that MAiD does not cause fluid buildup in the lungs, but that data isn’t peer-reviewed or widely available, and 33 cases out of 70,000 deaths is not statistically significant. Canada does not require autopsies for MAiD patients, so how can we say with certainty what does or does not happen physiologically during the process?
This isn’t about arguing that every MAiD case results in suffering—it’s about demanding transparency and research. MAiD should be held to the same medical and ethical standards as any other procedure. We cannot assume it is always peaceful and painless without the data to prove it. The real issue isn’t that these complications are definitely happening—it’s that Canada is not conducting the research necessary to prove they aren’t.
So my question to you is this: if you’re so confident that MAiD is as safe and peaceful as you claim, why not push for independent oversight, postmortem studies, and better research? If MAiD is truly without issue, shouldn’t the data reflect that?
I’ll keep asking these questions, not because I want to "win an argument," but because my mother’s experience demands it.
High praise for you Alicia🙌. The medical cartel/mafia makes getting to the Truth cumbersome but you are well on your way. They can’t believe how smart we are😉 Keep going. I will if you will.💚
You've just been informed of Alicia's mother's autopsy suggesting something that sounds like pulmonary oedema, and you've doubled down on your dismissal. You continue to doubt.
One of the problems we have is that, yes, there is a lack of autopsy evidence on MAID deaths, but maybe now we have some. And an autopsy report isn't 'peer-reviewed'; they aren't published in journals and are often hard to access by researchers.
What we have are drugs used in quantities and combinations they weren't tested and designed for. No one interested in responsible clinical practice, patient safety, or side effects could support this practice. It is very reasonable to think that administering drugs off-label is utterly reckless, and we should *expect* the patient to be badly affected.
Indeed, the right-to-die movement for decades has messed around with uncontrolled lethal 'experiments' on vulnerable people trying different drugs, asphyxiating gases, and administration contraptions. The substances used in MAID are applied no differently.
Alicia, I feel great sympathy for what your family has suffered. After reading your post, I googled your mother’s name. I read this in one of the articles:
“At the request of their mother’s longtime doctor, an autopsy was held, and Christie said it showed there was nothing in her health that would have been fatal.
The girls want to ensure that any medical practitioner who delivered MAID without following protocols be criminally charged.
They pursued complaints against the people involved with the BC College of Physicians, but they deemed it a criminal matter.”
It seems to me that your mother did not actually receive MAiD, since the protocols were not followed. I am further sorry that this happened, and wonder if the various provinces have different protocols?
Having been present at two natural deaths, and hearing reports from close family members/ friends who were present at two MAiD deaths here in Ontario, I am very much a believer in MAiD as a personal choice, but only when protocols that I saw used in these personal experiences are followed, to ensure peaceful, painless, quick death.
Both subjects in the situations of my experience had numerous interviews, counselling sessions, and physician appointments from more than one provider, over a number of weeks and then again when the end approached. Both were required to involve at least one ‘next of kin’ in that process. I also know of one person who suffers from poverty and mental illness, who has applied twice, and after a series of meetings, been turned down, as it appears your mother should have been.
Is your fight to stop MAiD, or simply to ensure stricter protocols? It is quite unnerving to learn that intravenous death was provided so quickly and without, it seems, responsible oversight, in your mother’s case. Not only because that was not right, on any level, and to me it was very shoddy medical practice, to my mind malpractice, but because it brings a well, researched, carefully designed and needful program into question.
My aunt who chose MAiD did so after a decade as a hospice volunteer, having been present at many natural deaths, which are very often protracted and difficult, despite pain control.
Again, my sympathies for the grievous loss of your mother, which to me should have been subject to public scrutiny by regulatory boards in BC, and possibly criminal prosecution of the providers!
Thank you for your message and for taking the time to read about my mother’s case. I appreciate your sympathy and your willingness to engage in this discussion with an open mind.
To clarify—yes, my mother did receive MAiD. The issue my family has fought to bring to light is that the safeguards and protocols that should have been in place were not properly followed. While MAiD is intended to be a well-regulated process, what happened in my mother’s case raises serious concerns about oversight, transparency, and accountability.
My goal is not to stop MAiD, but to ensure that the process is upheld with the highest possible safeguards so that no mistakes are made and no one needlessly suffers due to poorly researched medications or rushed approvals. If there were a way to guarantee a truly painless, carefully considered, and ethically sound process every time, I could possibly be on board. However, ensuring that level of precision and protection seems nearly impossible, which is why I remain deeply concerned.
Your experiences with MAiD in Ontario highlight what the process should look like when properly followed. But my mother’s case, and many others like it, demonstrate that this is not always happening. That is why I continue to push for transparency, proper oversight, and accountability for those who fail to follow protocols.
Again, I truly appreciate you reaching out and engaging in this discussion. These conversations are important, and I welcome them.
Best,
Alicia
You have really opened my eyes to the shortcomings I did not realize existed. I think I need to be much more active in learning about the reality which from your experience is clearly NOT being sufficiently safeguarded in some cases. This is unacceptable. Every Canadian, whether MAiD participant or family member, needs to be able to rely on strict protocols, and there should be criminal prosecution for lack of compliance. I believe in this program — but only within the strictest of guidelines, and most definitely not under circumstances like your mother’s case. Thank you for your activism!
Many thanks for your post and well said. I see 'Paul Magennis' who supports MAiD will anagram to 'am unpleasing'. This may explain some of his attacks.
Haha. That is so funny. Thank you for that. Three points:
1. I wish I knew this before. I'm definitely going to use that. I can't wait to tell my wife.
2. You folks literally make every mistake when trying to making an argument. That's what's called an ad hominem attack/fallacy, where you attack the person's character or attributes rather than their argument. It's yet another sign you have a weak argument.
3. Kelsi explicitly said there is no place for personal attacks in these conversations. She actually wrote an entire post about how doing so shows you have a weak argument. So you should expect her to take your comment down or ask you to retract that statement, right? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
Shit! I just realized it's literally this post by Kelsi accusing us of personal attacks that you chose to make a personal attack on me! Haha. You can't make this level hypocrisy up!
Ahsolutely correct.
This is just a legal way to murder..and to meet that eugenics goal of getting rid of unnecessary people