HOW NOT TO DIE
- Jun 1
- 54 min read
Updated: Jun 16
I’m declaring 2026 the year of the moral panic. We’re really going all-in, here. Aren’t we? To me, the following is quickly becoming Canada’s Epstein files: replete with the wildest allegations accompanied by a shocking paucity of evidence and a growing international furor all due to reporters, journalists, and editors showing no willingness to ask the most obvious questions or offer readily available data while, of course, delivering outlandish headlines.
— Now, what follows is 13,700 words covering all manner of cases and themes relating to death, dying, euthanasia, and suicide, with a focus on Canada's MAiD program. If you don’t want to read about that then here is a good place to turn away. As evidenced in this essay, if you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues or thinking about harming yourself there really are folks all over with backgrounds, expertise, and resources or every sort who want to help.
TL;DR
The quality of the conversation around dying and medically assisted dying is atrocious.
Except for a few radicals, almost everyone is for medically assisted dying: as long as it uses their preferred euphemisms, is administered by their people, and avoids circumstances they're personally uncomfortable with.
Those most vocal in their opposition to Canada's MAiD don't offer great arguments and avoid obvious comparisons. They also love providing unverifiable instances and non-existent hypotheticals and like to misrepresent or straight-up lie about MAiD and the people who've sought it out.
No, Canada does not resemble Nazi Germany but does, kind of, operate its assisted dying program a little bit like present-day Belgium and Netherlands (if you squint your eyes and tilt your head sideways.)
MAiD does not look like a get-rich-quick scheme for Canadian doctors.
The suicide rate in Canada is lower than at any time in generations while organ donation is middling; the rate of MAiD deaths is not crazy and organ donation by MAiD recipients is moderate, making up only a small percentage of overall donations.
Canada's medical system, like its MAiD program, has plenty of room for improvement but is not terrible and aligns with peer nations on most fronts (unlike the US).
Since when did Americans and Brits care so much about Canadian policy or social issues? Why is all this furious reporting and podcasting (that must have taken weeks or months to organize, conduct, edit, and publish) all arriving around the same time?
Why not upgrade the conversation and talk about real stuff and what's actually happening?
CHAPTER I - OFFERED?
A SERIOUS ALLEGATION
The Western Journal and others “reported” [sic] on April 6th, 2026, “Woman with Back Pain Horrified at ER Visit, Says Doctor's 'Very First Words' Offered Her Euthanasia.” I hope we all agree that’s a shocking allegation. The trouble is that it doesn’t look to me like this happened. Why? Many reasons. To start, this 84-year-old, Miriam Lancaster, had not filed a complaint or even taken her allegation to the press (regarding an event she says transpired a whole year prior) but, instead, religiously-inspired papers plucked the story off a post from this woman’s Facebook page. When she did officially come out with the story she published it in the press, again, rather than spelling out her situation, naming people, and submitting a formal complaint.
The backstory we’re given is that Lancaster was getting out of bed one morning, put her foot on the floor and had such excruciating and unusual pain that she cried out. It is unclear to whom she called. What we do know is that paramedics showed up and she was whisked off to emergency. Her daughter tells these non-adversarial reporters that “we just wanted pain relief. And we wanted to know what had happened. It was difficult to identify where the pain had come from.” And we know that after some tests doctors found the source of the pain was a fractured sacrum — which is typically treated with bed rest. Lancaster also reports that while she healed in hospital (for how long we do not know but 3-6 weeks is common) she received excellent care. So she took up the time of emergency responders, the crew at a busy urban ER, and a bed in an overwhelmed hospital when what she, a frail senior with serious osteoporosis who has outlived median life expectancy, needed was extra strength Tylenol, maple walnut ice cream, and some Netflix.
Neither Ms Lancaster nor her daughter or any family members (nor her family doctor or lawyer, spiritual advisor or church community, friends or neighbours, or anyone else) made a formal complaint of any kind against any individual or organization at the time of the incident or in the year since. That would seem like the minimum you would do, wouldn’t it? After all, together the woman and the press are, in effect, claiming and acting as if Lancaster narrowly escaped a murder attempt. That's how they're framing this. And yet, no one even did so little as identify any person involved or even leave any potentially identifying hints in all of this reporting, either; thus, no one could check any details or hear any another side of this story, and enough time elapsed that any recollection was unlikely and probably poor at best.
Myself and everyone else, surely, are desperate to know which healthcare professional it was who was behaving so atrociously. And, given the seriousness of what's being alleged, why would the the victim get to preserve the perpetrator’s anonymity. Right? No one is claiming a discussion or end-of-life arose after 12 weeks in hospital, an endless battery of useless tests and ineffective treatments, and morphine failing to dull this woman’s unbearable pain. The allegation is that someone in the ER was positively eager for her to die the moment they saw Lancaster arrived in the ER. So, who is she protecting and why? Or is it more likely this whole thing is fiction?
Still, as a result of this weird selective silence and no journalistic probing of any sort, no real inquiry was able to happen. As you would expect, however, Vancouver Coastal Health did feel the need to respond to this allegation, however vague, and look into it. They publicly stated that they’re not aware of any such conversation between the victim and staff in the emergency department at Vancouver General Hospital. So, something isn’t right with this story and reporting on it without digging for further obvious and needed details seems to me like a clear dose of journalistic malpractice on top of the alleged medical malpractice.
AGAIN, AGAIN!
A month later, on May 4th, 2026 The Catholic Herald told us (based on “reports” from Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. Irondale, Alabama) that a Vancouver priest, Father Holland, was offered euthanasia while recovering in hospital. More than that, they insist the devout Catholic “was twice offered assisted death by hospital medical staff who knew he was a priest and opposed to euthanasia — a practice critics say is growing.”
In this and other reporting, Father Holland described his feeling about this, telling us “I think I was very shocked. It is such a sensitive subject … There are some things you just don’t talk about to some people.” We're also told the priest explained to hospital staff that he was fundamentally opposed to assisted suicide (self-administered) or voluntary euthanasia (clinician-administered) and also that the doctor responded by telling him “he just wanted to make sure that, if a terminal diagnosis came up or not … I knew of the different services I had access to.” The article explains how, a few weeks later, still in hospital, Father Holland was “offered” euthanasia a second time and that this time the topic came up with a nurse.
BUT DID THAT HAPPEN?
That’s a set of wild claims, or mostly twisted framing as I see it. The first thing worth noticing is that, though he is quoted several times, not once does the alleged victim report being “offered” assisted suicide. At the very minimum, we should read such a serious allegation coming direct from the mouth of the victim, even just one time. Shouldn’t we? Then, it’s not just that what I hope we all interpret as very serious allegations were made and spread far and wide (ones asserted by the article’s author but unstated by the alleged victim) but that those doing the reporting sought neither to identify anyone nor, seemingly, to get verification or any other version of events from multiple parties involved. If there is any validity to the assertions in the article (or even the man’s rather different stated allegations) you would think the victim would wish to stop this from happening to others. You might even think, as I do, as suggested in the previous case, that such threats to vulnerable people, really no different than threats toward children or hate motivated ones toward minorities, have no place in society and are sufficiently serious that making such an allegation, privately or so publicly as this, obviously precludes the victim’s desire to protect the perpetrator(s). I mean, if you go to the press telling them that a police officer, lifeguard, or nurse approached you and asked if you would like for them to kill you, I hope someone somewhere at some point thinks to ask for a name, badge number, or mere description and public voices and institutions seek a transparent investigation. Surely someone would wish to learn something about the incident. Surely!
