I observe Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit, tossing a link to a piece on Legal Insurrection, wherein we find Leslie Eastman:
Amid celebrations over the U.S. beating Canada to take the gold in both men’s and women’s hockey, there have been many comments about how far Canada has fallen in terms of culture and quality of life.
There is certainly much evidence to support this premise, especially as it relates to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program. In a recent post, I noted that the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership criticized Canada’s program, which is now linked to organ donation, with one top official calling it a “strange new horror” and a cautionary example for other countries.
Yeah, no kidding. At issue:
The grieving parents of a 26-year-old man are speaking out against Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) laws, arguing the system failed to protect their "vulnerable" son from being euthanized, despite a history of mental illness.
Kiano Vafaeian was euthanized on Dec. 30, 2025, in British Columbia. His family says he was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at age 4 and began struggling with mental health after a car accident at 17.
His mother, Margaret Marsilla of Ontario, said his depression was often seasonal, yet he became "obsessed" with MAID after losing vision in one eye in 2022.
"He kept on emphasizing about how he could get approved," Marsilla told Fox News Digital. "We never thought there would be a chance that any doctor would approve a 22- or 23-year-old at that time for MAID because of diabetes or blindness."
But, alas, approve they did.
The family said Vafaeian was rejected by multiple doctors in Ontario before he sought out Dr. Ellen Wiebe, a prominent MAID provider, in British Columbia. Marsilla believes Wiebe "coached" her son on what to say to meet the criteria for "Track 2" patients — those whose natural deaths are not reasonably imminent.
Eastman points out:
The name Kiano Vafaeian should be familiar to Legal Insurrection readers. I featured her in a previous report in 2023, when she bragged about euthanizing 400 people already…as “the most rewarding work we’ve ever done”.
That said, I can’t help but think back to Terri Schiavo. The difference being that there was no evidence of mental issues as there are in the case of Kiano Vafaeian.
The apparent eagerness of Ellen Wiebe (and I have problems calling her “doctor”) to take a life should be a problem for anyone who values life, and particularly anyone who claims the title of doctor.
Part of the issue here that cannot, in my opinion, be ignored is the involvement of the government. I’ve been saying since Hillarycare was a thing, and I consider it axiomatic these days: “When government runs healthcare, every healthcare decision becomes, of necessity, a political decision.”
Consider the words of former presidential candidate Howard Dean, incidental to the death of Terry Schiavo, back in — what was it, — 2005?
We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on...
“This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008," Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood, "because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'”
I responded at the time that Dean needed to re-examine the many meanings of the word “love” because clearly the actions of Terry Schiavo’s husband were not covered under any of them, nor were they found in Dean's comments. I've always thought that the position he spoke to them is a large reason why his campaign crashed and burned so spectacularly. Kinda hard to get behind a "doctor" whose bedside manner was so close to that of Dracula's. Made it worse that he seemed so proud of it.
There is much to credit the argument that both these cases, both Vafaeian and Schiavo, were murder, carried out by the Hemlock Society Glee Club, under the guidance of the government. A government, I add, is motivated by cost factors as much as anything else. They get to decide if you live or die, motivated as much as anything else, by the question, government can afford billions for illegal aliens, millions for pushing the LGBTQ mantra for third world countries, and 10% for the big guy, AND keeping you alive.
Oh, I can hear the backlash on these comments already: “You’re just playing politics, Florack!” Sorry, that line carries zero weight with me. Politics itself is not the issue. Politics is a purely reactive entity.
Usually, when Sen. Smith makes the charge against Sen. Jones that Sen. Jones is “playing politics,” it translates to “I’d really rather that Sen. Jones hadn’t brought that matter up.”
The truth is that politics is how the interests of the people are dealt with in a representative republic, which we supposedly have. This is not a matter of mere salesmanship, usually. Sen. Jones is bringing up the subject — whatever it is — because he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the topic carries some weight with the voter.
Politics is the tool free societies use to examine, discuss, and decide issues that are important to the personal and cultural values of the people within those societies.
The truth is that this is a cultural discussion that’s been a long time in coming and one we’ve managed to side-step several times, over even my own lifetime. Both changes and perceived changes are driving it, not politics, though the charge of playing politics is usually the diversionary tactic employed by those who would rather not discuss it at all. Not only has our ability to preserve life changed, but our culture has been threatened with changes in the perception of when life is valuable, as well. It’s logical, then, that these matters become public discussion.
One point I hope we’ve learned so far is that the judiciary is not the place to be deciding such weighty matters, nor is government of any kind, for that matter, which is one reason I have been so vehemently against government running healthcare.
To wonder if we’re on a slippery slope sounds like a strange moral compliment, in which we are reduced to mumbling sophistries about compassion and consent. That’s a compliment I refuse to give. Are we so far gone that we are killing deaf, unborn children, and the comatose and even the partially disabled, as in this case, while arguing that our actions are merciful?
If so, what is the litmus test to be applied for future political discussions on the topic? Will the Democrats offer up the view that would require, let’s say, judicial nominees be pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-right-to-suicide, and pro-pull the plug on medical cases deemed hopeless?
I know the direction we are supposed to be moving if we are to claim anything on the order of mercy, compassion, and the value of life. Getting there is another matter, because alas, there are no short-term fixes for this problem.
All we can do is point out the incongruities where they present themselves.
