Trudeau Lemmens recently reposted a claim suggesting that the French government is "offering older people euthanasia rather than air conditioning." While the claim may be emotionally compelling, it relies on a familiar and misleading tactic that falsely presents MAiD as an alternative to healthcare or social supports. This "MAiD instead of..." narrative has become a common feature of anti-MAiD messaging, despite having little relationship to how MAiD actually works.

There should be no debate that Canadian veterans deserve better access to care and support. Unfortunately, Sheren follows that uncontroversial point with two familiar myths about MAiD: that it is used instead of providing treatment, and that it exists because treatment is too expensive. Neither claim is supported by the evidence.

Andrew Lawton claims that preventing MAiD for mental illness will save thousands of lives. That prediction is not supported by any evidence and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of who could actually qualify under Canada's proposed eligibility criteria. The reality is that experts expect only a very small number of people to meet the exceptionally high threshold required for eligibility.

Some of the most harmful anti-MAiD messaging has nothing to do with MAiD itself. It falsely portrays doctors, nurses, and palliative care clinicians as people who actively seek out vulnerable patients to persuade them to choose assisted dying. Few messages are more likely to undermine trust in health care or discourage seriously ill people from seeking the compassionate care they need.

Kelsi Sheren has repeatedly promoted the false claim that MAiD is linked to coercive organ donation, a claim independently debunked by both AFP Fact Check and CTV News. Despite the public record showing she repeatedly stated that organ donation was effectively required for MAiD, Sheren has since denied making those statements. The facts are clear: organ donation is never mandatory for MAiD, and only a small minority of people who receive MAiD are both eligible for and choose to become organ donors.

Triggernometry gave Kelsi Sheren a platform to make numerous false and misleading claims about MAiD, yet many of those claims went entirely unchallenged by the hosts. Viewers were left with a profoundly inaccurate understanding of how MAiD works in Canada, despite many of the claims having already been publicly debunked. We examined the interview in detail on our Substack, comparing Sheren's statements with the available evidence, Canadian law, and current clinical practice.

Kelsi Sheren has repeatedly objected to being called a conspiracy theorist. But when someone links MAiD, organ donation, skin donation, black markets, and “skin wallets” in the same breath, it becomes very hard to describe that as anything else. There is no evidence whatsoever that people who receive MAiD are being forced to donate organs or tissue — let alone that their skin is being turned into wallets.

Dr. Joel Zivot is again claiming that people who receive MAiD in Canada are being “drowned to death.” We take another quick look at why these claims do not match the science — ahead of a much more detailed (and admittedly nerdy) breakdown coming in the next few weeks.

This article from The Hill claims assisted dying involves “experimental drug compounds” and dangerous complications. But the concerns it raises are largely based on the American oral self-administration model and do not reflect how MAiD is practiced in Canada, where the process is medically supervised, overwhelmingly IV-based, and carefully regulated.

The Toronto Sun wants readers to believe MAiD was a Liberal invention. It wasn’t. MAiD became legal because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the blanket prohibition unconstitutional in Carter v. Canada.

Alex Schadenberg claims MAiD assessors “only” need to be “of the opinion” that someone meets the eligibility criteria. But in medical and legal contexts, that phrase does not mean a casual belief or personal hunch. It means a formal professional judgment, grounded in the law, the facts of the case, and the standards that apply to MAiD assessment.

At a recent U.S. Senate committee hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that MAiD is the number one cause of death in Canada. That claim is false: MAiD is not classified as a cause of death in Canadian mortality data, and major causes of death such as cancer and heart disease account for far more deaths each year. The “leading cause of death” narrative is a recurring misinformation tactic that relies on shock value rather than medical or statistical reality.

Dr. Saba claimed that “in most cases the desire to die is a symptom of mental illness.” But wanting to die can arise from very different circumstances, including suicidal crisis, treatable psychiatric suffering, or a competent request for MAiD in the context of grievous physical decline. MAiD assessors and providers are required to understand those distinctions—and they do.

A National Post column and anti-MAiD activists claimed legal scholar Jocelyn Downie said people with mental illness “must be euthanized lest they kill themselves.” She said no such thing. This article examines how her actual testimony was distorted into a classic straw man—replacing a nuanced argument with a more extreme version that is easier to attack.

After parliamentary testimony about MAiD and mental illness, Alex Schadenberg claimed rising suicide numbers in Canada as a rebuttal. But official Canadian data tells a different story: suicide rates per 100,000 population have remained relatively stable, revealing how selective statistics can distort the debate.

Conscientious objection in MAiD remains fully protected—no clinician is forced to participate. The real issue is whether patients can access care when institutions refuse to allow it.

In a recent Facebook Reel, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition claimed that MAiD patients are paralyzed and then “drown” or suffocate. This is false—and has already been refuted by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s own co-founder—a medical doctor.

MP Tamara Jansen claimed that a person could qualify for MAiD during their first psychiatric visit, even without prior mental health care. That claim is false and misrepresents the law.

Opponents are distorting a much narrower discussion about infants with conditions incompatible with life. This is not about MAiD—and it is not about disabled or “unwanted” babies.