Canada’s journey with legalized euthanasia, known as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), has become a lightning rod for debate, both within its borders and abroad. Since the practice was legalized in 2016, the country has experienced a staggering rise in assisted deaths, with the rate and scope of eligibility expanding rapidly—far beyond what many citizens and lawmakers initially envisioned. Now, as Parliament debates whether to extend access to children and teenagers, the national conversation has reached a new level of urgency and complexity.
When Canada joined countries like Belgium and the Netherlands in legalizing euthanasia nearly a decade ago, government officials assured the public that strict safeguards would prevent the kind of rapid expansion seen elsewhere. The original law required that only adults of sound mind, facing imminent death, could access MAiD. However, as reported by WORLD on August 20, 2025, these restrictions have loosened with alarming speed. In just five years, Canada’s assisted suicide rate hit 3 percent of all deaths—a milestone that took Belgium over two decades to reach.
According to The Catholic Register, the number of MAiD deaths in Canada skyrocketed from 1,018 in 2016 to 13,241 in 2022—a thirteenfold increase. By 2022, euthanasia accounted for at least 3 percent of all Canadian fatalities. These are not just statistics; behind every number is a story, a family, and a set of circumstances that led to the most final of choices.
What’s fueling this explosive growth? As Elaina Plott Calabro wrote in The Atlantic, Canada’s leaders appear to view the expansion of MAiD almost as an inevitability, rather than a policy choice. She observed, “Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAiD from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics; as if continued expansion is not a reality the government is choosing so much as conceding. This is the story of an ideology in motion, of what happens when a nation enshrines a right before reckoning with the totality of its logic.”
That logic, critics argue, is rooted in an extreme interpretation of personal autonomy. As WORLD noted, the policy is based on the belief that individuals have an inherent right to demand medically delivered death on demand. If autonomy is the guiding principle, where are the limits? “If autonomy in death is sacrosanct, is there anyone who shouldn’t be helped to die?” Calabro asked, highlighting the difficult ethical terrain Canada now navigates.
But the expansion of eligibility criteria has raised alarm bells. The requirement for a terminal diagnosis has given way to include serious but non-terminal medical conditions, and even mental distress. In Quebec, the only Canadian jurisdiction that records detailed data on MAiD recipients, the majority now have a natural life expectancy of more than a month, with 20 percent in 2023 expected to live over six months. For comparison, Alexander Raikin, a visiting fellow in bioethics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed out that in the Netherlands—long considered the global benchmark for euthanasia policy—only 0.2 percent of euthanasia deaths involved patients expected to live more than six months.
Raikin’s research, presented at a Cardus think tank webinar and summarized in The Catholic Register, also flagged a troubling lack of scrutiny in MAiD applications. He revealed that “there is a surprisingly large number of people who die from MAiD when the providers are unaware if their patient even has a disability or not.” This raises fundamental questions about the rigor of the assessment process and the intent behind the original 2015 Supreme Court of Canada Carter v. Canada decision, which was supposed to make MAiD an option of last resort.
David Shannon, a lawyer and disability rights activist, has seen the paradox of choice play out firsthand. “If persons are suffering deeply through not being able to find a home, not having a job, or maybe they have an apartment, but they can’t get heat in winter… when you start seeing this impact, it is truly a paradox,” he said during the Cardus webinar. “One is forced into a choice out of distress rather than a conscience-free choice of autonomy.”
Shannon also noted that the Carter decision “did not look at an equality analysis,” leaving the broader impact on Canadians with disabilities largely unexamined. The forthcoming Cardus report, due September 16, 2025, will address this gap, exploring how MAiD affects vulnerable populations—especially when social factors like housing and heating insecurity contribute to a sense of hopelessness.
The expansion of MAiD has not been without controversy or unintended consequences. Reports have surfaced of euthanasia proceeding even when patients resisted at the last moment. There are open discussions in Parliament about extending MAiD access to children and teenagers. As WORLD reported, “Parliament seems for it. After all, it’s now a government-sanctioned way to escape life.” Such developments have led some critics to label Canada’s trajectory as a “death cult,” arguing that the country is moving from passive to active euthanasia, from voluntary to involuntary, and from adults to minors, all in the name of autonomy.
These concerns are not merely theoretical. In a striking anecdote cited by Calabro, one man diagnosed with cancer told his wife, “I’m not going to have cancer. I’ll kill myself.” She replied, “You know, dear, you don’t have to do that. The government will do it for you, and they’ll do it for free.” This exchange, while darkly humorous, underscores the profound shift in how Canadians view end-of-life care—and the role of the state in it.
Financial considerations are also part of the conversation. Euthanasia is undeniably less expensive than long-term medical care, and critics worry that cost-saving motives could subtly influence policy decisions. As WORLD put it, “Euthanasia is far cheaper than medical care. And know this for certain: Canada’s government knows how to do the math.”
Supporters of MAiD, on the other hand, argue that the expansion reflects a compassionate response to suffering and a respect for individual choice. They point to the relief MAiD can bring to those experiencing unbearable pain or indignity, and to the importance of trusting people to make decisions about their own lives. Yet even among proponents, there is growing unease about how quickly and broadly the system has grown—and whether enough safeguards remain in place.
As Canada stands at the crossroads, with Parliament considering further expansion and new data emerging about the realities of MAiD, the country’s experience serves as both a cautionary tale and a case study in the complexities of end-of-life policy. The next chapter—particularly regarding children, teenagers, and people with disabilities—will be watched closely by advocates, critics, and policymakers around the world.
The debate over MAiD in Canada is far from settled, but one thing is clear: the choices being made now will shape the nation’s moral and medical landscape for generations to come.