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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.