False Claim: MAiD assessors “only” have to “be of the opinion” that someone meets the eligibility criteria

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition repeated a misleading claim about Canada’s MAiD law at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying on May 5, 2026 claiming that MAiD assessors “only” need to be “of the opinion” that a person meets the eligibility criteria.

This wording is not accidental. In earlier posts on his blog, Schadenberg has made the same argument repeatedly. We are aware of this claim being made at least a dozen times on the EPC blog over the last few years. Here are a few:

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2022/05/quebec-introduces-bill-to-permit.html

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2024/03/scotlands-deceptive-euthanasia-bill.html

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/05/canada-parliament-needs-to-fully-review.html

By repeatedly framing the law with words like “only” and “all they need,” Alex Schadenberg appears to be trying to minimize the seriousness of MAiD assessments and the professional responsibilities of the clinicians who conduct them. Either he does not understand what “be of the opinion” means in medical and legal contexts, or he is relying on the public not understanding it.

What “be of the opinion” really means

In law, this phrase does not mean a casual belief, a personal hunch, or an arbitrary decision. It means a formal professional judgment made by someone with the training, authority, and legal responsibility to apply the relevant criteria. By reducing that standard to something that sounds vague and unserious, Schadenberg constructs a strawman version of the MAiD assessment process — one in which assessors simply decide, without rigour or accountability, that a person qualifies.

That is not how MAiD assessments work. It may be easier to attack that weakened version of the law, but it is not an honest description of the law itself.

Schadenberg also claims that this wording means no one can realistically be prosecuted. But that does not follow. A professional opinion is not automatically valid simply because someone claims to hold it.

A MAiD assessor cannot avoid legal and professional scrutiny simply by saying, “I was of the opinion they qualified,” if the facts of the case could not reasonably support that conclusion. The question would not be whether the assessor claimed to hold the opinion. The question would be whether that opinion was formed through a competent assessment, in good faith, based on the legal criteria, the clinical facts, and the professional standards that apply to MAiD.

This is why Schadenberg’s framing is so misleading. He treats “be of the opinion” as though it creates a subjective escape hatch, when in reality it describes a professional judgment that must be capable of being justified. MAiD must also be provided with “reasonable knowledge, care and skill and in accordance with applicable provincial laws, rules, and standards.” That is not casual language, and it is not a blank cheque. It is a professional and legal obligation. One the MAiD assessors take seriously.

MAiD assessors do not avoid legal or professional responsibility because the standards are lax. They avoid it by taking their role seriously, following the law, documenting their reasoning, and meeting the standards the law and their profession demand.

“Be of the opinion” is common in legal language

This use of “be of the opinion” is not unusual in legal language. Medical and legal decisions often depend on the opinion" of a qualified professional or decision-maker. Under British Columbia’s Mental Health Act, for example, involuntary admission can depend on a physician or nurse practitioner being “of the opinion” that a person has a mental disorder and meets other criteria requiring care, supervision, and treatment in or through a designated facility.

The same type of language appears in other high-stakes legal contexts. Under the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Industrial Relations Board may act when it “is of the opinion” that a strike or lockout could pose an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. That can lead to orders requiring certain services or operations to continue.

There are countless other examples of this language being used in serious legal and medical documents.

In other words, “of the opinion” is standard legal language. It reflects a professional or institutional determination made by someone with the authority, training, and responsibility to make it.

If someone is confident in their argument, they should be able to steelman the opposing position: present the strongest version of it, then explain why they think it fails. Schadenberg does the opposite. He weakens the MAiD assessment process into something unrecognizable, then attacks that weaker version.

That may be rhetorically useful. But it is not an honest description of how MAiD assessments work.

Verdict: False. There is nothing “only” about a MAiD eligibility assessment.