Update on MAiD in Canada

Euthanasia by organ donation—what fresh hell is this?

The one and only time we discussed Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada was back in March 2024; in that piece we mentioned that deaths by MAiD had increased from 1,018 in 3016 to 13,241 in 2022. We now have statistics for 2023, and the number of euthanized Canadians continues to climb—up to 15,343 in that year, according to Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Even more disturbingly, of those deaths, it seems that there were over six hundred non-compliant MAiD deaths in Canada in 2023. What exactly is a “noncompliant” death, anyway? Simply, it is a death that is not compliant with Canada’s current laws regarding euthanasia; in most cases, these were individuals whose death was “not reasonably foreseeable” (translation: they were not fatally ill); according to a report from StatCan:

The StatCan report found that, in the 622 MAID cases where natural death was not "reasonably foreseeable," 47 per cent suffered from isolation or loneliness and 49 per cent perceived themselves to be a burden to family, friends and caregivers.

"The only reason they died last year was because they were provided MAID," said Gaind. "We're talking about people, in some cases, that had more than 10 years to live. That should raise some red flags."

It is certainly troubling that these cases of MAiD continue to increase year over year; it is even more disturbing that individuals are being euthanized that do not have a terminal condition and are either disabled or concerned about being a burden to caregivers. However, there is another deeply disturbing layer to this story:

Canadian doctors push for euthanasia by organ donation.

If you checked out the video Celia Farber recently posted, you will be aware of the fact that the practice of organ donation is more controversial than one might imagine—organs can be donated as soon as a patient is determined to be “brain dead”—however, there is no scientific reason to say that “brain death” equates to actual death because it does not. Therefore, recipients of organs—with the possible exceptions of the kidneys and the bone marrow—are receiving organs that are taken from a person that is, definitionally, still alive. That’s what makes this report out of Canada so concerning and creepy. Emphasis is mine throughout.

Currently euthanasia is linked to organ donation in Canada, whereby, people who are approved for being killed by euthanasia are also encouraged to donate their healthy organs. Some Canadian doctors and "ethicists" are pushing for a change in the law to permit euthanasia by organ donation.

This change in law might prove to be somewhat tricky, as the current law encompasses what is called the “Dead Donor Rule,” which specifies that organ donors must be dead (by which they mean brain dead, which is not the same as dead dead) prior to harvesting of their organs. What Canadian physicians, “ethicists,” and lawmakers are proposing is a change to the law that would eliminate the Dead Donor Rule and allow the method of euthanasia to be the harvesting of healthy organs. This contradicts the law because currently MAiD must be administered via “substance” (in the case of MAiD, three drugs that paralyze and then drown the patient—lovely), and removal of organs is not a “substance.”

Rob Sibbald, an ethicist of the London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, has been heavily promoting this postmodern, post human concept of euthanasia via organ donation. From his mouth to your screen:

“We’re so invested in this dead donor rule,” Sibbald said. “That rule has become so ingrained in the medical community that we hold it out as a foundational principle. … And I think just as likely there are people who question that value now. And I know there’s perhaps not an appetite to go there, but raising the question — is the dead donor rule even relevant?”

This is insane to me. “Is the dead donor rule even relevant?” What kind of “ethicist” is seriously asking the question of whether it’s ethically questionable to farm organs from donors that are still alive? It should also be pointed out that Canada is a hub for post-euthanasia organ donation worldwide.

He suggested death may not occur at one particular moment in time, and said the “best use” of organs from patients who are “going to receive a medically assisted death” could be to harvest them while the victim is alive.

“If, to meet your definition of the dead donor rule, you have to consider me dead once you’ve first put me under and you have no intention of bringing me back well then fine, I can accept that if those are my values,” Sibbald said.

Death may not occur at one particular moment in time? How do we define death, then? It gets worse.

“Following the dead donor rule could interfere with the ability of these patients to achieve their goal,” the article reads. “In such cases, it may be ethically preferable to procure the patient’s organs in the same way that organs are procured from brain-dead patients (with the use of general anesthesia to ensure the patient’s comfort).”

With the use of general anesthesia to ensure the patient’s comfort. This is nothing short of barbarism. He’s quite literally talking about cutting organs out of live patients as means of ending their lives. This is horror movie level shit; if this doesn’t scare you, I’d suggest you aren’t paying attention. These permissive laws are but a reflection of the culture; and at this point Canada’s culture is a very dark one. And it isn’t just confined to Canada. The fact that MAiD is a thing at all is deeply disturbing; the expansion of MAiD to patients that are not even fatally ill needs to have stopped yesterday. I don’t know what the solution is now that these horrors have been well and truly unleashed on the Canadian population for nearly ten years now, but at the very least, eliminating the “Dead Donor Rule” must never be allowed to take place. (Also—“achieve their goal?” Like getting euthanized is a New Year’s resolution or something—sick.)

But what really concerns me is the offering of MAiD to the disabled and, in at least one case, to the vaccine-injured. Where will this stop? We see already that the medical establishment has no problems retaining millions of Black and Gay Americans in care on toxic PrEp drugs—how much further can this go? Hopefully, we won’t find out. But really, this whole thing is really as simple as Schadenberg’s statement that (emphasis mine) “One of the problems with legalizing euthanasia, as in Canada, is that the law permits doctors and nurse practitioners to kill their patients.” I know this isn’t new, but it’s a complete perversion of the medical profession, which has historically been centered on healing and not destruction. No wonder confidence in medical treatments and pharmaceutical products is at a historic low. Why would you trust a provider to cure you when it might be in their best interests to let you die, or to even hasten that process along?

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I’ll try to cover something less depressing next time.