Independent Policy Publication. Authored by Justin Bogner. Not affiliated with any government, institution, or advocacy organization. About the author
Media & Press

Press Materials

Key statistics, story angles, pull quotes, and downloads for journalists and media covering MAiD reform.

New Policy Packet Proposes Replacing Suffering Requirement in Assisted Dying Law with Capacity Standard
A nine-document suite argues that the only principled gate for Medical Aid in Dying is decisional capacity — and that legally recognized MAiD deaths should generate mandatory public accountability for the social failures that drive them.

A comprehensive policy packet released in 2026 proposes a fundamental reform of Medical Aid in Dying eligibility in Canada and the United States: replacing current suffering-based and terminal-diagnosis-based criteria with a single standard of decisional capacity.

The packet, Autonomy, Capacity, and the Right to Exit, argues that the existing framework is incoherent on its own terms. Medical law in every relevant jurisdiction already grants competent adults the near-absolute right to refuse life-sustaining treatment — including refusing it without having attempted it. The packet contends that the moral logic permitting a patient to refuse a ventilator and die by suffocation equally supports permitting that patient to choose a swifter death by other means. The distinction current law draws is, the packet argues, aesthetic rather than principled.

The packet also introduces a structural argument it terms the "structural accountability mechanism": that every legally recognized MAiD death, under the proposed framework, would generate a mandatory signed report — filed with three government ministries and the regional coroner — documenting the socioeconomic conditions that contributed to the request. Where a person chose death because they could not access home care, adequate housing, or disability supports, that failure would become a named, signed, legally attested public record. The argument is that this mechanism creates political accountability for the structural conditions that make life unlivable, in a way that restricting MAiD access does not.

The packet includes six audience-specific briefs (legislative, legal, clinical, academic, advocacy, and a complete master document), a model mandatory reporting form, and a companion personal essay. A full fiscal impact analysis — modeled across low, medium, and high uptake scenarios in Canada and the United States — is incorporated with explicit ethical caveats against its use as a policy rationale.

The packet is available in full at this site. All documents are free to download.

Key Statistics for Coverage

All figures sourced from Health Canada, parliamentary budget analysis, and peer-reviewed literature.

16,499
MAiD provisions in Canada in 2024 — 5.1% of all Canadian deaths, the highest proportion of any country with legal euthanasia
Health Canada, 6th Annual Report (2025)
732
Non-terminal (Track 2) MAiD provisions in Canada in 2024, up 17% year-over-year
Health Canada, 6th Annual Report (2025)
61.5%
Of Track 2 (non-terminal) recipients in Canada who reported disability as a primary driver of their request
Health Canada, 6th Annual Report (2025)
$62M
CAD — estimated annual net healthcare savings from non-terminal MAiD provisions at current utilization levels (Canada)
Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office (2020)
1:15–50
Cost ratio: each dollar spent on a MAiD provision avoids $15–$50 in chronic care spending, depending on condition
PBO; Tanuseputro et al., PLOS ONE (2015)
20+ yrs
Belgium and the Netherlands have operated under broad MAiD eligibility — including psychiatric cases — without the predicted collapse of safeguards
Belgian Federal Control and Evaluation Committee (2024)
90 days
Minimum mandatory assessment period proposed under the capacity framework — the core procedural filter distinguishing stable preference from acute crisis
Proposed framework (this packet)
3
Government ministries that would receive a copy of every mandatory socioeconomic driver report under the proposed framework: Health, Social Services, and the Regional Coroner
Model Form MD-06 (this packet)

Quotable Passages

From the packet and companion essay — available for use with attribution.

"The distinction the law currently draws is not principled; it is aesthetic. The moral logic that permits a patient to refuse a ventilator and die by suffocation also supports permitting that patient to choose a swifter and less distressing death by other means."
— Master Policy Packet, Section II
"Bar the exit and you don't save a life. You take ownership of one."
— Companion Essay, Autonomy's Exit
"The correct response to a capacitated person choosing death because poverty makes their life intolerable is not to deny them the choice. It is to stop making people poor."
— Companion Essay, Autonomy's Exit
"Unbearable is not a clinical category. It is a subjective threshold that varies with individual psychology, cultural background, pain tolerance, and access to support services. To adjudicate on it requires evaluators to override the applicant's own report in favor of external assessment — precisely the paternalism this framework rejects."
— Master Policy Packet, Section I
"The only condition under which presence means anything is the condition under which it is genuinely chosen. And the only condition under which it can be genuinely chosen is the condition under which not-choosing it was also available."
— Companion Essay, Autonomy's Exit
"Where socioeconomic conditions drive MAiD uptake, those conditions become documented public record. The moral and political cost of that record creates structural incentive for investment in life. This is not advocacy for death; it is the most consequential structural argument for dignified living."
— Master Policy Packet, Executive Summary

Frames for Coverage

The packet raises questions relevant across multiple beats.

Health Policy
Canada's Track 2 MAiD Is Growing — And the Data Shows Why
732 non-terminal provisions in 2024, up 17% year-over-year. 61.5% of recipients reported disability. Documented cases cite housing instability and inadequate care supports as primary drivers. This packet asks what it would mean to make that documentation legally mandatory and politically legible — filed with three ministries and the coroner on every case.
Law & Rights
You Can Refuse a Ventilator Without Attempting It. Why Can't You Choose MAiD the Same Way?
Medical law grants competent adults the near-absolute right to refuse any life-sustaining treatment without having tried it first. The informed refusal doctrine requires only that the refusal be informed. This packet argues that MAiD law applies a double standard with no principled basis — and that the asymmetry is the central incoherence the reform is designed to correct.
Disability Rights
The Disability Rights Critique of MAiD Is Partially Right. This Framework Says So.
DAWN Canada and the UN Special Rapporteur have argued that expanding MAiD eligibility normalizes death as a state response to policy failure. This packet acknowledges that concern as "partially correct and structurally important" — and proposes the mandatory socioeconomic reporting mechanism as a structural answer, not a deflection. Whether that answer satisfies disability rights advocates is one of the most contested questions the packet raises.
Fiscal Policy
MAiD Saves Money. This Packet Makes That Case — Then Argues Strenuously Against Using It.
The cost ratio across chronic conditions runs approximately 1:15 to 1:50 — each dollar spent on a MAiD provision avoids $15–$50 in chronic care spending. The packet includes a full fiscal analysis across low, medium, and high uptake scenarios for Canada and the US, then devotes substantial space to why those numbers must never function as policy rationale. The tension between fiscal transparency and fiscal motivation is one of the packet's central ethical problems.
Personal Essay
He Survived a Suicide Attempt at 18. Twenty Years Later, He's Arguing for the Right to Choose Death.
The companion essay — titled Autonomy and the Right to Fuck Off Permanently — proceeds from the author's own psychiatric history to a political position on bodily sovereignty. Written from a place of stability, not suffering, it argues that the policy position is stronger, not weaker, for having been reached from the other side of crisis. The essay is included as autobiographical context for the philosophical commitments that shape the framework.

Justin Bogner

Justin Bogner
Independent Scholar & Policy Writer
Published Works The Serpent's Sentence (2024)
The Mathematics of Connection (2025)
Packet Released 2026
Areas Medical ethics · Bodily autonomy · MAiD policy · Philosophy of mind

Justin Bogner is an independent scholar and policy writer whose work engages the intersection of philosophy, medical ethics, and political argument. His two books — The Serpent's Sentence (2024), on language and the construction of the narrating self, and The Mathematics of Connection (2025), on the substrate-independence of genuine connection — developed the philosophical foundations that inform this policy packet.

The policy packet draws on Bogner's personal history — including surviving a serious suicide attempt at eighteen — as biographical context for, not evidence of, its central claims. The companion essay addresses the relationship between that history and the political position directly, and argues that the case for exit rights is strengthened, not undermined, by being made from a position of stability nearly two decades after that experience.

Bogner's approach throughout the packet is to establish that the existing MAiD framework is incoherent on its own terms before advocating for the proposed standard. He engages the disability rights critique, the depressive incapacity objection, and the slippery slope argument in their strongest formulations, and acknowledges where those objections identify real phenomena.

Note on Media Requests

Bogner is available for comment on the policy arguments in this packet. Requests touching on the personal material in the companion essay will be considered case by case. The companion essay is included as context for the philosophical commitments shaping the framework — it is not offered as a recovery narrative or a personal interest story, and coverage treating it as such is discouraged.

All Documents

All documents are available for download without restriction. Attribution required.

Master Policy Packet
Complete reference — full philosophical argument, statutory language, fiscal analysis
PDF
Legal Foundations
Constitutional and doctrinal basis for the capacity standard
Read Online
Legislative Brief
Plain-language policy summary — written for elected officials and staff
PDF
Advocacy Brief
Engages disability rights and protectionist objections directly
PDF
Academic Paper
Full philosophical argument with citation apparatus
PDF
Clinical Brief
Clinical ethics, capacity protocol, and liability considerations
PDF
Model Reporting Form (MD-06)
The mandatory socioeconomic driver form at the heart of the structural accountability mechanism
PDF
Companion Essay — Autonomy's Exit
Autobiographical and philosophical foundation — personal register, academic structure
PDF

Attribution: Bogner, Justin. Autonomy, Capacity, and the Right to Exit: A Policy Packet on Capacity-Based Medical Aid in Dying. 2026. All documents free to reproduce with attribution.