The debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has reached a fever pitch in Canada, with ripple effects being felt south of the border and across the Atlantic. The recent confirmation by the Quebec College of Physicians that it continues to support euthanasia as an "appropriate treatment" for infants with severe disabilities has reignited controversy and alarmed advocacy groups, ethicists, and disability rights organizations.
According to the Daily Mail, the Quebec College of Physicians reiterated in August 2025 that it still considers medical assistance in dying (MAID) to be suitable for babies suffering from "extreme pain that cannot be relieved and who have severe malformations or serious polysymptomatic syndromes that destroy any prospect of survival." This stance was first articulated in 2022 by Louis Roy, who represented the College before Canada’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Roy proposed that euthanasia should be available for infants up to one year old "who are born with severe deformations, very grave and severe medical syndromes, whose life expectancy and level of suffering are such that it would make sense to ensure that they do not suffer."
The College’s position is clear: "The CMQ reiterates that medical assistance in dying may be an appropriate treatment for babies suffering from extreme pain that cannot be relieved and who have severe malformations or serious polysymptomatic syndromes that destroy any prospect of survival," the organization told the Daily Mail. Furthermore, the College frames euthanasia as a form of "care" for these children, adding, "The CMQ believes that parents should have the opportunity to obtain this care for their infant under these well-defined circumstances."
This approach has drawn fierce criticism from disability rights advocates and pro-life organizations. Catherine Robinson, a spokesperson for Right to Life UK, condemned the proposal as "appalling and a clear form of eugenic discrimination." In a statement released August 28, Robinson said, "Babies with severe disabilities deserve care, and their families need support. Canada should not be considering euthanising its most vulnerable citizens."
Canada’s MAID program has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. As reported by CatholicVote, euthanasia is now the fifth-leading cause of death in the country. The Daily Mail highlighted that there is such a "high" demand for euthanasia that some doctors are struggling to keep up with requests. In November 2024, Quebec enacted a law enabling "advance requests" for MAID, allowing patients with conditions such as dementia to request euthanasia for a future time when they may no longer be able to consent. The Daily Mail also noted that within two years from August 2025, individuals with mental illnesses will qualify for MAID, and Parliament has recommended expanding access to those under 18. It is already legal in Canada for persons with certain non-terminal illnesses to seek euthanasia.
The Canadian experience has not gone unnoticed abroad. In a recent column published September 3, 2025, Dan Kennedy of The Boston Globe and Media Nation expressed deep skepticism about physician-assisted suicide, particularly as Massachusetts prepares to debate the issue. Kennedy cited a rigorous investigation by Elaina Plott Calabro in The Atlantic, which detailed how Canada’s system, originally designed for terminally ill patients in their final days, has "devolved into something entirely different." According to Calabro, people are now choosing to die because they are depressed, overwhelmed by medical bills, or simply because Canadian law elevates patient autonomy above all other values.
Calabro’s reporting, as quoted by Kennedy, paints a sobering picture: "Nine years after the legalization of assisted death, 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. If autonomy in death is sacrosanct, is there anyone who shouldn’t be helped to die?"
Disability rights activists have voiced particular concern that physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia could be used as tools of discrimination. The organization Not Dead Yet, referenced by Kennedy, describes these practices as "deadly forms of discrimination." Kennedy, who identifies as an auxiliary member of the disability community, warns that such measures could "encourage people to kill themselves as a way of saving money for the health-care system." He further criticizes the rebranding of physician-assisted suicide as "medical aid in dying," calling it "a euphemism piled on top of a euphemism in an attempt to play down the reality."
Meanwhile, the normalization of euthanasia in Canada has led to calls for strong safeguards elsewhere. Kennedy notes, "At the very least, we need stringent protections to make sure that this extraordinary remedy is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Then again, the Canadian example shows that once physician-assisted suicide is normalized, then protections that had been put in place quickly fade away."
Even in the United States, the debate is fraught with tension. The Boston Globe has editorialized in favor of physician-assisted suicide, but the issue became more contentious in 2024 when it was revealed that a staff member, Kevin Cullen, had signed papers to hasten the death of a woman whose journey he was chronicling. This revelation sparked renewed scrutiny of the ethical and procedural safeguards—or lack thereof—surrounding the practice.
Back in Canada, the expansion of MAID continues apace. The Daily Mail reported that Parliament is considering further broadening eligibility to include minors under 18, a move that has drawn both support and condemnation. Proponents argue that expanding access upholds individual autonomy and relieves suffering, while critics warn of a slippery slope toward normalizing the ending of vulnerable lives for reasons that may not be strictly medical.
For families facing the unimaginable pain of a severely ill infant, the Quebec College of Physicians maintains that euthanasia should be an available option—albeit only under "well-defined circumstances." Yet, as the ethical debate rages, questions linger about how such lines are drawn and whether they can ever be truly secure. The experience in Canada, as documented by journalists and advocates alike, serves as both a cautionary tale and a window into the profound moral dilemmas at the heart of modern medicine.
As lawmakers, physicians, and families grapple with these life-and-death decisions, the world watches closely. The Canadian example, with its rapid expansion and shifting boundaries, raises urgent questions about autonomy, dignity, and the responsibilities of a compassionate society. For now, the debate is far from settled, and its outcome will shape the future of end-of-life care for generations to come.
