The Reality

No. This claim is false. It is not supported by evidence, accepted pharmacology, or the inspection of lungs transplanted after MAiD.

The medications used in MAiD are standard medical drugs commonly used in hospitals for anaesthesia, sedation, and critical care.

There is no factual basis for the claim that MAiD medications “fill the lungs with fluid” or cause people to “drown.”

Where This Claim Came From

A version of this argument has been built by comparing MAiD to capital punishment by lethal injection. The claim is that because autopsies after capital punishment showed some fluid in the lungs that must be happening after MAiD in Canada.

That comparison is deeply flawed from the start.

Why This Claim Misleads

The central fallacy is a false equivalence.

It assumes that because one set of drugs used in one context may have caused concern, a different set of drugs used in a completely different context must create the same result.

That logic does not hold. It is like saying someone had a reaction to peanut M&Ms, therefore Skittles must also be unsafe. They are different substances, and you cannot transfer conclusions from one to the other simply because both are candy.

The same applies here: the fact that executions showed fluid in the lungs does not tell you that medically administered MAiD medications behave the same way.

The claim also uses emotionally loaded language such as “drowning” to create fear rather than understanding.

What the Evidence Shows

• MAiD uses established medical medications with well-known effects.

• These drugs are used daily in hospitals around the world.

• MAiD medication protocols are not the same as lethal injection execution protocols.

• There is no credible evidence that MAiD patients “drown to death.”

• Lungs have been donated after MAiD, and published transplant literature documents successful lung transplantation following MAiD, with no signs that the lungs are “filled with fluid.”

Our Coverage:

You Do Not Drown to Death - MAiD in Canada

The Horrifying Misinformation about MAiD Jordan Peterson and Kelsi Sheren Want You to Believe - YouTube

Other Resources:

Dr. Stefanie Green disproves content in anti-MAID video - Dying with Dignity Canada

Outcomes of lung transplantation from organ donation after medical assistance in dying: First North American experience - American Journal Of Transplant

Quick Share Version

No, MAiD medications do not “fill the lungs with fluid.” This claim wrongly compares MAiD to lethal injection executions, even though the drugs and protocols are entirely different. It is fear-based rhetoric, not evidence.

The Reality

No. This claim is false.

This claim goes against every available guidance document that consistently shows the opposite: medications to provide sedation and then induce a deep medical coma are given first, and only afterward—once that deep medical coma is established and confirmed—is a paralytic used to stop the person’s breathing.

The suggestion that someone is consciously paralysed so they “cannot scream” is not an evidence-based criticism of MAiD. It is a fabricated narrative.

Where This Claim Appears to Come From

This claim appears to have been popularized by Kelsi Sheren. We have found no evidence that this was an established concern anywhere before being promoted in activist commentary.

Extraordinary claims require evidence. The evidence on this is clear.

Why This Claim Misleads

The central tactic is simple: reverse the actual order of medications, then describe that invented sequence as though it were real.

In reality, the sequence matters enormously. The purpose of the initial medications is to ensure the person is unconscious and unaware before any later medication is administered.

It is similar to describing surgery by saying, “They cut you open first,” while deliberately omitting the anaesthetic.

The phrase “so they can’t scream” is also pure emotional theatre. It is meant to create horror in the listener, not understanding.

What the Evidence Shows

• No MAiD standard or protocol supports the claim that a paralytic is administered first.

• Publicly available MAiD guidance shows sedation and induction of deep unconsciousness occur first.

• A paralytic is given only after unconsciousness is established and confirmed.

• The amount of anesthetic guarantees there is no chance of the person being awake, aware, or silently suffering because they were “unable to scream.” 

Our Coverage:

The MAiD Medications - MAiD in Canada

The Horrifying Misinformation about MAiD Jordan Peterson and Kelsi Sheren Want You to Believe - YouTube

Other Resources:

Dr. Stefanie Green disproves content in anti-MAID video - Dying with Dignity Canada

Quick Share Version

No, a paralytic is not given first in MAiD. There are no protocols or standards supporting that claim. Public guidance shows unconsciousness is induced first, and only then may a paralytic be used.

The Reality

No. This claim is often imported from reports in U.S. jurisdictions such as Oregon and Washington, but those systems use very different assisted dying models than Canada.

In those states, the person typically receives a prescription, takes the medication themselves, often at home, and may do so without a clinician physically present. That is a fundamentally different process from how MAiD is usually provided in Canada.

In Canada, the overwhelming majority of MAiD cases involve a physician or nurse practitioner administering medications intravenously (IV). The clinician remains present until death is confirmed.

The average time until death in Canada is between 7-12 minutes.

Why This Claim Misleads

This claim relies on false comparison between jurisdictions.

It takes outcomes or anecdotes from systems with different laws, different medication routes, different monitoring, and different clinical practices, then presents them as though they describe Canada.

They do not.

Canada’s MAiD system is primarily clinician-administered IV medication, not take-home self-administration.

How MAiD Actually Works in Canada

• Almost all Canadian MAiD medications are given by IV by a doctor or nurse practitioner.

• The clinician stays with the person throughout the process.

• Death is formally confirmed by the clinician.

• A small number of people choose oral medication instead.

For oral MAiD in Canada, contingency planning is part of practice. If death has not occurred within the expected timeframe (60-90 minutes), the IV medications are then given and death occurs in about 10 minutes  

Our Coverage:

Time to death (IV versus oral medication) - MAiD in Canada

Other Resources:

Dr. Stefanie Green disproves content in anti-MAID video - Dying with Dignity Canada

The Reality

No. This claim is not supported by Canadian evidence.

Available data have shown that people accessing MAiD in Canada are more likely to come from higher-income or more advantaged areas, not the poorest neighbourhoods. That does not mean wealth causes MAiD uptake—it means the common narrative that MAiD is “targeting the poor” is contradicted by the available evidence.

As with many areas of health care, people with greater resources often find systems easier to navigate and services easier to access.

Why This Claim Misleads

This claim often combines two separate issues:

1. Real social suffering exists — poverty, disability barriers, housing insecurity, and gaps in care are serious problems.

2. Therefore MAiD must be targeting those groups — this second claim does not automatically follow.

That is a logical leap.

It is entirely reasonable to argue Canada should reduce poverty, improve disability supports, expand housing, and strengthen care systems. But it is inaccurate to claim existing MAiD data show a deliberate or systemic targeting of poor people.

What Safeguards Actually Require

MAiD eligibility in Canada is based on legal criteria and medical assessment—not income level.

Assessors must determine that the request is:

• voluntary

• informed

• not the result of external pressure

• connected to an eligible grievous and irremediable medical condition under the law

• made by a capable person giving informed consent

Where social vulnerability, coercion, lack of supports, or remediable circumstances are concerns, these issues are relevant to assessment and require careful exploration.

What the Evidence Shows

• Canadian reports have not demonstrated that MAiD is concentrated among the poorest populations.

• Several analyses have found higher uptake in more affluent areas.

• Claims that MAiD is “targeting the poor” often overstate anecdotal cases and ignore broader population data.    

Our Coverage:

Recent Reports on MAiD Contradict Claims that Marginalization Drives Assisted Dying in Canada - MAiD in Canada

Other Resources:

Fifth Annual Report on MAiD - Health Canada

The Ontario Chief Coroner's reports are clear - alarm about MAID in Canada isn't warranted - James Downer and Jocelyn Downie (Value Judgements - Substack)

The Reality

No. MAiD was not legalized in Canada as a cost-saving measure.

The federal government did not simply decide to create MAiD for budget reasons. Canada was required to respond after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v. Canada, which found the blanket prohibition on assisted dying unconstitutional in certain circumstances.

The legal and ethical foundation of MAiD in Canada is individual autonomy, relief of intolerable suffering, and Charter rights—not reducing public spending.

The claims have been repeatedlyrefuted, including by Health Canada.

Why This Claim Misleads

This claim often takes one of two forms:

1. Because MAiD may avoid some end-of-life costs, that must be why it exists.

2. Because someone estimated savings, the government must be motivated by savings.

Neither follows logically.

Many healthcare interventions have cost implications. That does not mean cost is their purpose. Palliative care, preventive medicine, vaccines, surgeries, and home supports all affect spending patterns, but we do not infer their sole purpose is financial.

The existence of possible downstream savings is not proof of political motive.

What the Evidence Shows

• MAiD became legal because of constitutional litigation and subsequent legislation following the Carter ruling.

• Public discussion around MAiD has centred on rights, suffering, consent, safeguards, and eligibility—not balancing budgets.

• Estimates of possible system savings have generally represented a tiny fraction of total healthcare spending.

• Figures often cited amount to roughly 0.035-0.08% of total healthcare expenditures—hardly evidence of a grand fiscal strategy.

Why the “Savings” Narrative Persists

The idea is emotionally potent: if people can be convinced MAiD exists to save money, trust in the system is damaged.

That makes it an effective rhetorical claim even when weakly supported.

It also often relies on giving exaggerated importance to speculative papers or commentary while ignoring the actual legal history of MAiD in Canada.  

Our Coverage:

Is This the Most Irresponsible Paper About MAiD Ever Published? - MAiD in Canada

Other Resources:

Coming soon

The Reality

MAiD is not an alternative to palliative care. It exists alongside palliative care as a separate end-of-life option for eligible people.

Palliative care and MAiD have different purposes, though both aim to reduce suffering and respect the needs of the patient. Palliative care focuses on comfort, symptom control, psychosocial support, and quality of life through serious illness and at end of life. MAiD is a legally regulated option that some eligible people may choose when suffering remains intolerable.

These are not mutually exclusive pathways.

What the Law Requires

In Canada, people requesting MAiD must be informed of the available means to relieve suffering, including:

• palliative care

• counselling services

• disability supports

• community services

• other relevant treatment or support options

For Track 2 MAiD, the law places even greater emphasis on ensuring these means have been seriously considered.

MAiD assessors are required to explore whether the person understands these options and has had an opportunity to consider them.

What the Evidence Shows

Most people who receive MAiD in Canada have already been receiving palliative care. Many have had substantial involvement with palliative teams, hospice services, oncology, home care, or symptom management specialists before making their request.

This directly contradicts the idea that people are choosing MAiD instead of being offered care.

For many people, palliative care provides exactly what they need and they never pursue MAiD. For others, even with excellent care, suffering may remain intolerable due to loss of function, dependency, breathlessness, pain, existential distress, or progressive decline.

Why This Claim Misleads

This claim creates a false choice:

• either support palliative care

• or support MAiD

In reality, most people access both care options. A person may receive palliative care for months or years and later decide that MAiD aligns with their values and limits.

Suggesting MAiD replaces palliative care also risks erasing the many clinicians who work in both spaces and the many patients who experience them together.

A Better Way to Understand It

Palliative care seeks to help people live as well as possible until death. MAiD offers an additional option for eligible individuals whose suffering cannot be acceptably relieved.

One does not negate the other.

Resources

The Sixth Annual Report on MAiD - Health Canada

Quick Share Version

No, MAiD is not an alternative to palliative care. In Canada, patients must be informed about palliative care and other supports before MAiD eligibility is confirmed, and most people who choose MAiD have already received palliative care.

This is a common myth about MAiD and organ donation. It claims that people must agree to donate their organs in order to be approved for MAiD, or that organ donation is somehow expected as part of the MAiD process.

This claim is entirely false.

Unfortunately, it can cause significant harm. We have heard from patients and families who have become fearful of discussing MAiD because they believed they would be pressured to donate their organs. Some people have even questioned whether they could trust the healthcare professionals caring for them. Misinformation like this undermines confidence in MAiD, organ donation systems, and the health care system in general.

The reality is that choosing MAiD and choosing to become an organ donor are two entirely separate decisions. A person can receive MAiD without ever discussing organ donation, and refusing to donate organs has absolutely no effect on whether they qualify for MAiD. Likewise, someone may choose to become an organ donor without ever requesting MAiD.

To be eligible for MAiD in Canada, a person must meet the legal criteria set out in the Criminal Code. Those criteria relate to the person's medical condition, decision-making capacity, voluntariness, and informed consent. Organ donation is not one of those criteria and is never considered when determining whether someone qualifies.

In fact, only a small proportion of people who receive MAiD are medically eligible to donate organs. Many patients have medical conditions that make organ donation impossible. For most people who receive MAiD, organ donation is never even an option.

For those who are medically eligible, Canadian practice requires that the decision to pursue MAiD be made independently before organ donation is discussed. This separation exists specifically to ensure that the decision to receive MAiD is never influenced by the possibility of organ donation.

Patients who are eligible to donate have the opportunity to consider it if they wish. The decision is entirely up to them, and the decision does not affect their eligibility for MAiD or the care they receive.

Despite repeated claims on social media, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been required to agree to organ donation in order to receive MAiD. It is simply not how the Canadian MAiD system operates.

Another common piece of misinformation claims that Canada's MAiD system exists, at least in part, to increase the supply of transplantable organs. Variations of this claim suggest that patients are pressured toward MAiD because their organs are valuable, that hospitals or governments have financial incentives to encourage MAiD, or that MAiD providers and transplant programs work together to obtain organs from vulnerable people.

These are serious allegations. They also have real consequences. They encourage people to distrust healthcare professionals, create unnecessary fear about both MAiD and organ donation, and have discouraged individuals from registering as organ donors or donating blood. We have also seen these claims cause significant distress for patients and families who are already navigating some of the most difficult decisions of their lives.

This claim is entirely false. 

Canadian policies intentionally separate the MAiD process from the organ donation process. A person's request for MAiD must stand on its own and be assessed according to Canadian law. Only after that independent decision has been made is organ donation considered—and only if the patient is medically eligible and wishes to explore it.

The professionals involved also have distinct roles. The clinicians assessing and providing MAiD are not responsible for organ transplantation, and transplant teams are not involved in determining whether someone qualifies for MAiD. These safeguards exist specifically to prevent conflicts of interest and protect patient autonomy.

It is also important to recognize how uncommon organ donation after MAiD actually is. Only a small fraction of people who receive MAiD are medically eligible to donate organs, and only some of those ultimately become donors. Organ donation after MAiD represents only a very small proportion of all MAiD cases in Canada.

Claims about financial incentives are equally unsupported, and the people who make this claim provide no evidence. Clinicians, hospitals, or governments do not benefit financially from patients to choose MAiD and make an organ donation. 

For some patients, organ donation is simply a final act of generosity after they have independently decided to receive MAiD. Canadian policies are designed to protect both decisions while ensuring they remain voluntary, independent, and free from coercion. Claims that MAiD exists as a mechanism to obtain organs are not supported by evidence and misrepresent how both the MAiD and organ donation systems operate.

This is one of the most common and misleading arguments used by opponents of MAiD. The wording changes, but the message is always the same: the government is supposedly offering MAiD instead of something else that people need.

We've seen this claim made about palliative care, disability supports, mental health services, affordable housing, home care, poverty reduction, long-term care, and even air conditioning in nursing homes.

The argument relies on a false dilemma. It presents two options as though they are mutually exclusive when they are not. It suggests that governments must choose between providing healthcare and social supports or allowing access to MAiD, and that choosing MAiD means abandoning the other.

That is simply not how MAiD or health care works.

A person requesting MAiD is not told they cannot receive palliative care, home care, disability supports, counselling, or other healthcare services, but can have MAiD instead. In fact, people who receive MAiD have already accessed numerous healthcare and social supports before deciding that their suffering remains intolerable. Most Canadians who receive MAiD have received palliative care, and many continue to receive palliative care until the day they die.

Likewise, governments are not forced to choose between funding public services and allowing access to MAiD. They can improve palliative care, expand disability supports, increase funding for long-term care, improve mental health services, and invest in countless other programs while also respecting the legal right of eligible adults to choose MAiD.

These are independent policy questions that opponents of MAiD repeatedly conflate into a false either-or choice.

This type of misinformation is harmful because it creates the false impression that MAiD is replacing healthcare or social supports. It can discourage people from seeking palliative care, undermine trust in healthcare professionals, and shift public discussion away from meaningful conversations about improving services.

There are legitimate debates to be had about how governments fund healthcare and social programs. But those discussions should be based on accurate information—not on the false claim that people are being offered MAiD instead of the care or support they need.