Deafening Silence

Killed that Evening I Bill Vassilopoulos

I keep waiting for millions of women to pour into the streets, furious and unignorable, pitchforks raised—yet all we get is a cowardly, deafening silence.

A Todayville article published on January 24, 2026, details the case of an elderly Ontario woman referred to as Mrs. B. According to the report:

• She initially expressed interest in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).

• After being assessed, she explicitly withdrew her request, citing her personal and religious beliefs, and instead requested hospice or palliative care—requests that were denied.

• Later that same day, after her husband sought an urgent reassessment due to caregiver burnout, a different assessor approved MAiD, and Mrs. B was killed that evening.

The article explains that one MAiD assessor raised concerns regarding the urgency of the request and the possibility of undue influence, and requested additional time for evaluation. These concerns were overridden through the MAiD coordination process.

Background From the MDRC Report

Based on reporting from the Ontario Medical Assistance in Dying Death Review Committee (MDRC):

• Mrs. B was in her 80s at the time of the events.

• She received MAiD in Ontario, Canada, while hospitalized.

• The procedure occurred on the same day as her assessments.

What the Reports Say

• Mrs. B experienced complications following coronary bypass surgery but was medically stable and not imminently dying at the time of her initial MAiD assessment.

• During the assessment process, she withdrew her MAiD request and asked for inpatient hospice care or expanded palliative care, citing personal and religious beliefs.

• Despite this, she was reassessed later the same day and received MAiD in Ontario.

This case has become a focal point in discussions surrounding MAiD safeguards and informed consent. The official review noted concerns regarding the compressed timeline and the manner in which the assessments were conducted.

Ethical and Social Concerns

In other words, Mrs. B’s voice—and the MAiD assessor who sought to honor her change of mind—was effectively silenced and overruled by her husband and two other physicians.

Surely, a case such as this would ignite the feminist movement and the #MeToo movement. Instead, what follows is deafening silence.

Where is the outrage?
Where are the protesters in the streets demanding accountability and answers as to how her husband could exercise more control over her life than she ever did?

It deeply saddens me that there are husbands like this. Rather than protecting his wife, he acted as though he were God, deciding matters of life and death.

Putting MAiD in Perspective

To place this issue in context, for nearly a decade I taught Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST). During that period, approximately 10-11 individuals per day were reported to have died by suicide, averaging roughly 3,500 deaths per year. Canada has not updated these figures since 2016—the same year the Supreme Court legalized euthanasia under Carter v. Canada.

Since legalization in 2016, MAiD deaths have increased at an unprecedented rate. What began in 2016 has now escalated to an average of approximately 45 MAiD deaths per day across Canada. To date, there have been approximately 93,000 MAiD deaths nationwide.

Of those deaths, approximately 96% involved individuals identified as white or Caucasian, representing roughly 89,000 people.

In 2024 alone, 16,499 people received MAiD, averaging approximately 45 deaths per day. MAiD accounted for roughly 5.1% of all deaths in Canada that year, with the proportion continuing to rise annually.

In Canadian vital statistics, MAiD deaths are not classified as suicide. Instead, the underlying medical condition is listed on death certificates, while MAiD itself is recorded as a “health service provided,” rather than as the cause of death.

Life Insurance Implications

These developments raise important questions regarding life insurance:

• Life insurance policies generally exclude unlawful deaths, and beneficiaries involved in causing the death of the insured are typically barred from collecting benefits.

• How these policies will be applied in MAiD-related cases—particularly where consent is disputed—remains an open question.

The Life Insurance Dilemma

So, what is the dilemma?

There is growing concern that certain end-of-life and insurance practices may give rise to significant legal and ethical risks. It has been alleged that some life insurance policies do not provide coverage for long-term care in cases of terminal illness and may condition the payment of benefits on the policyholder’s acceptance of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).

If such conditions exist, they could create a financial incentive structure that places undue pressure on vulnerable individuals and raises the possibility that third parties with a vested interest—such as beneficiaries—might be motivated to hasten the death of a family member for financial gain.

These circumstances warrant careful legal scrutiny, as they implicate issues of informed consent, coercion, fiduciary responsibility, and the protection of vulnerable persons.

Planning Your End-of-Life Wishes

• Individuals may document their wishes through advance directives or other medical planning tools. I will be posting my Right to Live Medical Card on this website, which is designed to clearly communicate a person’s medical end-of-life decisions.

• This card explicitly states a person’s refusal of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) and other unwanted medical end-of-life interventions, including the refusal to consent to organ donation. It also provides space to clearly indicate which medical treatments, supports, or interventions a person does consent to receiving.

• I am not a lawyer, and this Medical Card should be reviewed by a qualified legal professional before signing.

• Disclosure: Individuals are advised not to appoint a substitute decision-maker, power of attorney, or healthcare representative who supports Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) if that individual may act contrary to, or fail to uphold, the person’s stated end-of-life wishes.

Warmly, Your friend,

Bill Vassilopoulos