False Claims: Canada's MAiD laws are rapidly expanding, dementia is not yet eligible, and Quebec allows patients to be killed against their will

Source: Adam James Pollock, The Critic, October 19, 2026 (and posted on X by the Anti-MAiD crusader, Kevin Yuill)

Article: Canada must change course on assisted suicide

We are becoming increasingly aware that misinformation about medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada is not confined to Canada. Misrepresentations of our assisted dying system are increasingly appearing in international media and being used to influence debates about whether assisted dying should be legalized in other countries.

An October 19 opinion piece in the British publication The Critic, written by Adam James Pollock, provides an especially egregious example.

The article is unmistakably an opinion piece. Descriptions of Canadian MAiD as "euthanasia zealotry," alongside accusations of "murder," make the author's position abundantly clear. People are entitled to oppose assisted dying, and they are entitled to express that opposition forcefully.

But being entitled to an opinion does not mean being entitled to invent or misrepresent the facts supporting it.

And this article gets some remarkably basic facts wrong.

Claim: Canada's MAiD laws have undergone a "rapid expansion"

Pollock writes:

"Following its introduction, the law regarding euthanasia has undergone a rapid expansion."

Since federal legalization in 2016, Canada has enacted one expansion of MAiD eligibility: Bill C-7 in 2021, which removed the requirement that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable. This followed the 2019 Truchon decision, which found that requirement unconstitutional.

Even then, the change did not mean people could qualify for MAiD "simply living with disabilities or chronic health conditions," as Pollock suggests. All other eligibility requirements remained, and additional safeguards were introduced for individuals whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable.

These cases, known as Track 2, accounted for just 4.4% of all MAiD provisions in Canada in 2024, according to Health Canada's Sixth Annual Report on MAiD.

The number of people receiving MAiD has increased since legalization, but increasing utilization is not the same thing as repeatedly expanding eligibility. In fact, the annual rate of growth has slowed substantially.

Whatever one's views on the 2021 change, characterizing the legislative history as a series of rapid expansions is just factually inaccurate.

Claim: Legislation introduced in 2024 would expand MAiD to people with mental illness

Pollock writes:

"In 2024, legislation was introduced that would have extended the availability of these end of life methods to people whose sole basis for applying would be a mental health condition."

This is simply wrong.

The relevant legislation was Bill C-7, passed in 2021, which established a temporary exclusion for people whose sole underlying medical condition was a mental illness.

In 2023, Parliament passed Bill C-39, extending that exclusion. In 2024, Parliament passed Bill C-62, extending it again until March 17, 2027.

In other words, the legislation passed in 2024 did precisely the opposite of what Pollock suggests: it delayed an expansion rather than introducing one.

And just twelve days before Pollock's article was published, Justice Minister Sean Fraser announced that the federal government intended to prevent the scheduled March 2027 expansion from proceeding.

Whether one agrees with that decision or not, it is difficult to reconcile repeated delays and a proposed indefinite exclusion with the narrative of an unchecked, rapidly expanding system.

Claim: Advance requests could expand MAiD eligibility to include dementia

Discussing the federal government's proposed approach to advance requests, Pollock warns that it could allow MAiD to be expanded to additional conditions, "including dementia."

Except dementia is already a condition that can establish eligibility for MAiD in Canada.

People with dementia may qualify under existing federal legislation, provided they meet all eligibility requirements, including having the decision-making capacity necessary to provide informed consent.

According to Health Canada's 2024 annual report, 368 people who received MAiD that year had dementia reported as a medical condition.

The debate about advance requests is not about making dementia an eligible medical condition. It concerns whether someone who has already been diagnosed and who makes an advance request while capable should be able to receive MAiD after losing decision-making capacity, subject to the applicable legal safeguards.

This is a fundamental distinction, and one that an article purporting to explain Canada's MAiD legislation ought to get right.

Claim: Quebec's advance-request law allows patients to be killed against their will

Perhaps the most disturbing misrepresentation concerns Quebec's advance-request legislation.

Pollock quotes Professor Kevin Yuill:

"An advance directive means that medics will be holding down and killing a patient who cries out ‘No, no, no!’"

He then suggests that this is precisely what could happen in Quebec, describing it as killing people against their will.

This is an extraordinarily serious accusation, and one that gets Quebec's legal framework completely wrong.

Quebec's advance-request system does not simply authorize clinicians to administer MAiD because someone previously requested it. There are strict eligibility criteria, including requirements concerning an advanced and irreversible decline and enduring, unbearable suffering. Two qualified professionals must confirm that the applicable criteria are met.

Quebec's legislation also addresses situations in which the person expresses a refusal to receive MAiD. A refusal can prevent MAiD from being administered and result in the advance request being removed from the register.

This does not eliminate every ethical difficulty surrounding the interpretation of a person's wishes after they lose capacity. Those are legitimate issues worthy of serious discussion.

But presenting Quebec's legislation as a framework in which clinicians can simply restrain a protesting patient and administer MAiD against their expressed refusal is a gross distortion of what the law actually provides.

Readers can consult the Government of Quebec's explanation of advance requests rather than relying on Pollock's uninformed interpretation.

Opinion is not a substitute for accuracy

Throughout the article, emotionally charged descriptions of MAiD are used alongside factual errors and misleading characterizations of Canadian legislation.

The use of the word "murder" is particularly revealing. MAiD provided in accordance with Canada's Criminal Code is not murder. Although MAiD can technically be described as a form of non-culpable homicide, using the word "homicide" without explaining that legal distinction can carry an emotional implication very different from its legal meaning.

We have written before about how opponents of MAiD often rely on the emotional weight of such language. It is particularly troubling when that rhetoric is accompanied by fundamental misunderstandings of the laws being criticized.

An article intended to persuade readers in another country about the dangers of assisted dying should, at the very least, accurately describe the system it is using as a warning.

This article fails that basic test.

Canadian MAiD policy is increasingly being used as evidence in assisted dying debates around the world. When that evidence is factually wrong, it doesn't just misinform Canadians. It risks distorting public understanding and legislative debates in countries considering their own assisted dying laws.

People deserve better than arguments built on inaccuracies, sensationalism, and fear—particularly when the subject is as consequential as assisted dying.