Our society treats people with disabilities in an inequitable manner when compared with non‐disabled people. This marginalisation is especially telling in the area of end‐of‐life issues. The confounding of disability with terminal illness can support practices of encouraging death via assisted suicide and other means for people who, although vulnerable, are not at the end of their lives. The purpose of this paper is to examine a series of news articles covering a Canadian story of assisted suicide. From 2004–2006, newspapers followed the case of Marielle Houle, a mother accused of assisting her son in committing suicide. Although he had a disabling condition at the time of his death, Fariala was not at the end of his life. We use the analytical framework of critical discourse analysis to understand what role, if any, the press played in creating and reinforcing larger societal assumptions about living and dying with a disability.

The way in which medical professionals engage in bioethical issues ultimately reflects the type of care such patients are likely to receive. It is therefore critical for doctors and other health care professionals to have a broad understanding of disability. Our purpose in this paper is to explore ways of teaching bioethical issues to first year medical students by integrating alternative approaches. Such approaches include (a) the use of the narrative format, (b) the inclusion of a disability perspective, and (c) the presentation and facilitation of classes by people with disabilities. We consider how these new kinds of presentations are evaluated by students, faculty, people with disabilities and professional ethicists. We hope new knowledge may provide health care professionals with a greater understanding of the perspectives of patients with disabilities, who are confronted by conflicting ethical values and frameworks for decision-making in their interaction with such professionals.

Paying attention to the everyday discourse of suffering is important because, as members of society, we all play a role in negotiating the meaning of suffering. Such meaning has a significant impact upon patients and palliative care professionals alike.

Although there has been much discussion about distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research, our purpose here is not to revive those conversations, but instead to attempt to explore and articulate our identities as researchers who practice in the qualitative tradition. Using autoethnography as our methodology, we as six researchers from various social science disciplines and at various career stages engaged in focused introspection by responding individually to two questions: who am I as a qualitative researcher; and how did I come to that understanding? This reflection led to discussions of those elements and experiences that have shaped the way we see ourselves in the context of our research. The question of “identity” evolved into a discussion about “what we do.” During our data analysis, six themes emerged, representing our group’s responses: (a) building epistemology, (b) making/doing good research, (c) as an art or craft, (d) why does qualitative research need legitimating? (e) qualitative research as a social bridge, and (f) stewards of people’s lived experience. We conclude by reflecting on the value of building a community of practice among qualitative researchers.

Discussion during the forum revealed several benefits of creating ethical safe space. This model of workshop allows space for participation of stakeholders, who might not otherwise be able to interact in the same forum, to articulate their perspectives and debate with other presenters and audience members. Participants at the forum spoke of the creation of ethical safe space as a starting point for more dialogue on the issues raised by the policy statement. The forum was, therefore, seen as a potential starting point for building conversation that would facilitate revising the policy with broader consultation on its legal and ethical validity.