Connect with us

Great Reset

Assisted suicide activists should not be running our MAID program

Published

6 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Shawn Whatley

We should keep the right-to-die foxes out of the regulatory henhouse

The federal government chose a right-to-die advocacy group to help implement its medical assistance in dying legislation. Itā€™s a classic case of regulatory capture, otherwise known as letting the foxes guard the henhouse.

In the ā€œFourth annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2022,ā€ the federal government devoted several paragraphs of praising to the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP).

ā€œSince its inception in 2017, (CAMAP) has been and continues to be an important venue for information sharing among health-care professionals and other stakeholders involved in MAID,ā€ reads the report.

With $3.3 million in federal funding, ā€œCAMAP has been integral in creating a MAID assessor/provider community of practice, hosts an annual conference to discuss emerging issues related to the delivery of MAID and has developed several guidance materials for health-care professionals.ā€

Six clinicians in British Columbia formedĀ CAMAP, a national non-profit association, in October 2016. These six right-to-die advocatesĀ published clinical guidelinesĀ for MAID in 2017,Ā without seriously consultingĀ other physician organizations.

TheĀ guidelinesĀ educate clinicians on their ā€œprofessional obligation to (bring) up MAID as a care option for patients, when it is medically relevant and they are likely eligible for MAID.ā€ CAMAPā€™s guidelines apply to Canadaā€™sĀ 96,000 physicians,Ā 312,000 nursesĀ and the broader health-care workforce ofĀ two-million Canadians, wherever patients are involved.

The rise of CAMAP overlaps with right-to-die advocacy work in Canada. According toĀ Sandra Martin, writing in the Globe and Mail, CAMAP ā€œfollow(ed) in the steps of Dying with Dignity,ā€ an advocacy organization started in the 1980s, and ā€œbecame both a public voice and a de facto tutoring service for doctors, organizing information-swapping and self-help sessions for members.ā€

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tapped this ā€œtutoring serviceā€Ā to leadĀ the MAID program. CAMAP appears to follow the steps of Dying with Dignity, because the same people lead both groups. For example, Shanaaz Gokool, a currentĀ director of CAMAP,Ā served as CEOĀ of Dying with Dignity from 2016 to 2019.

A founding member andĀ current chairĀ of the board of directors of CAMAP is also a member of Dying with Dignityā€™s clinician advisory council. One of the advisoryĀ councilā€™s co-chairsĀ is also a member of Dying with Dignityā€™s board of directors, as well as a moderator of the CAMAP MAID Providers Forum. TheĀ otherĀ advisory council co-chairĀ served on bothĀ the boards of CAMAP and Dying with Dignity at the same time.

Overlap between CAMAP and Dying with Dignity includesĀ CAMAPĀ founders, board members (past and present), moderators,Ā research directorsĀ and more, showing that a small right-to-die advocacy group birthed a tiny clinical group, which now leads the MAID agenda in Canada. This is a problem because it means that a small group of activists exert outsized control over a program that has serious implications for many Canadians.

George Stigler, a Noble-winning economist,Ā described regulatory captureĀ in the 1960s, showing how government agencies can be captured to serve special interests.

Instead of serving citizens, focused interests can shape governments to serve narrow and select ends. Pharmaceutical companies work hard toĀ write the rulesĀ that regulate their industry. Doctors demand government regulations ā€” couched in the name of patient safety ā€” to decrease competition. The list is endless.

Debates about social issues can blind us to basic governance. Anyone who criticizes MAID governance is seen as being opposed to assisted death and is shut out of the debate. At the same time, theĀ world is watchingĀ Canada and trying to figure out what is going on with MAID and why weĀ are so differentĀ than other jurisdictions offering assisted suicide.

Canada moved from physician assisted suicideĀ being illegalĀ to becoming a world leader inĀ organ donationĀ after assisted death in the space of just six years.

In 2021, Quebec surpassed the Netherlands toĀ lead the worldĀ in per capita deaths by assisted suicide, with 5.1 per cent of deaths due to MAID in Quebec, 4.8 per cent in the Netherlands and 2.3 per cent in Belgium. In 2022, Canada extended its lead: MAID now represents 4.1 per cent of all deaths in Canada.

How did this happen so fast? Some point toĀ patients choosing MAIDĀ instead of facing Canadaā€™s world-famousĀ wait timesĀ for care. Others note a lack ofĀ social services. No doubt many factors fuel our passion for MAID, but none of these fully explain the phenomenon. In truth, Canada became world-famous for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide because we put right-to-die advocates in charge of assisted death.

Regardless of oneā€™s stance on MAID,Ā regulatory captureĀ is a well-known form of corruption. We should expect governments to avoid obvious conflicts of interest. Assuming Canadians want robust and ready access to MAID (which might itself assume too much), at least we should keep the right-to-die foxes out of the regulatory henhouse.

Shawn Whatley is a physician, a Munk senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and author of ā€œWhen Politics Comes Before Patients: Why and How Canadian Medicare is Failing.ā€

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on

logo

By

ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€

ā€œWeā€™d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€

Youā€™d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldnā€™t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like theyā€™re hunting down a cartel. But thatā€™s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine ā€” two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughterā€™s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in questionā€”Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of twoā€”had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the schoolā€™s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a ā€œmalicious communicationsā€ charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governorā€”so presumably knows his way around a budget meetingā€”asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about ā€œinflammatory and defamatoryā€ social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause ā€œdisharmony.ā€ One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of ā€œcasting aspersions,ā€ Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parentsā€™ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, whoā€”just to add to the bleakness of it allā€”has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you mightā€”just mightā€”vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, ā€œKarenā€™s upset againā€ sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charityā€”presumably a heinous act in todayā€™s climateā€”when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
ā€œI saw six police officers standing there,ā€ she said. ā€œMy first thought was that Sascha was dead.ā€
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. Thatā€™s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience ā€œdystopian,ā€ and, for once, the word isnā€™t hyperbole. ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€ he said. ā€œWe’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. Itā€™s like being detained by police for ā€œvibes.ā€
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a ā€œnuisance on school property,ā€ despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the schoolā€™s defenseā€”such as it isā€”they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become ā€œupsetting.ā€ Which raises an important question: when did being ā€œupsettingā€ become a police matter?
What weā€™re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hillā€™s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. ā€œThe number of officers was necessary,ā€ said a spokesman, ā€œto secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.ā€
Right. Nothing says ā€œchildcareā€ like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeksā€”five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transferā€”the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, whatā€™s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
Itā€™s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Continue Reading

Business

Labor Department cancels “America Last” spending spree spanning five continents

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The U.S. Department of Labor has scrapped nearly $600 million in foreign aid grants, including $10 million aimed at promoting ā€œgender equity in the Mexican workplace.ā€

Key Details:

  • Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling were credited with delivering $237 million in savings through the latest round of canceled programs.

  • Among the defunded initiatives: $12.2 million for ā€œworker empowermentā€ efforts in South America, $6.25 million to improve labor rights in Central American agriculture, and $5 million to promote women’s workplace participation in West Africa.

  • The Department of Government Efficiency described the cuts as necessary to realign U.S. labor policy with national interests and applauded the elimination of all 69 international grants managed by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs.

 

Diving Deeper:

The U.S. Department of Labor on Wednesday canceled $577 million in foreign aid grants, including a controversial $10 million program aimed at promoting ā€œgender equity in the Mexican workplace,ā€ according toĀ documentsĀ obtained by The Washington Post. The sweeping decision to terminate all 69 active international labor grants comes as part of a larger restructuring effort led by John Clark, a senior DOL official appointed during the Trump administration.

Clark directed the departmentā€™s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) to shut down its entire grant portfolio, citing a ā€œlack of alignment with agency priorities and national interest.ā€ The memo explaining the cancellations was first reported by The Washington Post and highlights a broader shift in federal labor policy toward domestic-focused initiatives.

Among the eliminated grants were high-dollar projects that had drawn criticism from watchdog groups for years. These included $12.2 million designated for ā€œworker empowerment in South America,ā€ $6.25 million targeting labor conditions in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and $5 million to elevate womenā€™s workplace participation in West Africa. Other defunded programs involved $4.3 million to support foreign migrant workers in Malaysia, $3 million to improve social protections for internal migrants in Bangladesh, and $3 million to promote ā€œsafe and inclusive work environmentsā€ in Lesotho.

The Department of Government Efficiency, also involved in the review, labeled the grants as ā€œAmerica Lastā€ initiatives, and pointed to the lack of measurable outcomes and limited benefits to American workers. The agency commended the leadership of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling for securing $237 million in savings during this round alone.

The cuts mark the second major cost-saving move under Chavez-DeRemerā€™s leadership in as many weeks. Just days earlier, she canceled an additional $33 million in funding, including a $1.5 million grant focused on increasing transparency in Uzbekistanā€™s cotton sector. Chavez-DeRemer, a former Republican congresswoman from Oregon, was confirmed as Labor Secretary on March 11th by a bipartisan Senate vote of 67-32.

Continue Reading

Trending

X