Euthanasia in Canada in its legal voluntary form is called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD, also spelled MAID) and it first became legal along with assisted suicide in June 2016 for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable. In March 2021, the law was further amended by Bill C-7 which to include those suffering from a grievous and irremediable condition whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. According to the Fourth Annual Report on MAID, there were 13,241 MAID deaths reported in Canada in 2022.[1]
The intensity and breadth of Canada's MAiD program has led to condemnation of its program by UN human rights experts and disability rights groups in Canada.[2] It has also been the subject of substantial international attention and criticism.[3][4][5] Human rights advocates have criticized Canada's euthanasia laws for lacking safeguards, devaluing the lives of disabled people, prompting health workers and doctors to suggest euthanasia to people who would not otherwise consider it, and killing people who were not receiving adequate government support to continue living.[2] In 2023, four medical specialists concluded in a study that "The Canadian MAiD regime is lacking the safeguards, data collection, and oversight necessary to protect Canadians against premature death."[6]
Background
Euthanasia was previously prohibited under the Criminal Code as a form of culpable homicide.[7][8] The prohibition was overturned in a February 2015 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), which ruled that the Criminal Code provisions that make it a crime to help a person end their life violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that eligible adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions are entitled to an assisted death. The Court delayed its suspension of invalidity for a period of 12 months, to allow Parliament the opportunity to amend its laws if it so chose.[9] In January 2016, the Court granted an additional four-month extension to the suspension to allow for further time. As an interim measure, it ruled that provincial courts can now begin approving applications for euthanasia pursuant to the criteria in the Carter decision. On 6 June 2016, the suspension of invalidity expired and the law was struck down. On 17 June 2016, a bill to legalize and regulate euthanasia passed in Canada's Parliament.[10]
Bill C-14, passed by the Parliament of Canada in June 2016, amended the Canadian Criminal Code so as to legalize both physician-administered euthanasia (PAE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and to govern access to both procedures in Canada. The bill disallowed for medically assisted death on the grounds of mental illness, long-term disability, or any curable condition and did not make euthanasia available to minors.
Bill C-7 amended the law so as to allow MAID for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. The changes to the law came about because of advocacy and legal challenges by people with disabilities, specifically Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon.
Other changes included:
The waiver of final consent - The waiver of final consent allows someone who has already been assessed and approved for MAID to receive it on or before their chosen date even if they do not have the capacity to consent at the time of the MAID procedure. This amendment is named after Audrey Parker, a Nova Scotia woman who was forced to access MAID earlier than she would have liked, because she was afraid that she would lose capacity and not be able to provide consent at the time of the MAID procedure, which is what the law required at the time.
Independent witness of MAID request form reduced from two to one.
The previous law's requirement that a natural death must be reasonably foreseeable and that the medical condition be grievous and irremediable medical condition had been controversial for how it limited the original Supreme Court of Canada ruling, mandating that euthanasia be made available to all adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) challenged the constitutionality of the previous law because it excluded people with long-term disabilities and those with "curable" medical conditions whose only treatment options people may find unacceptable.[11] The BCCLA argued these medical conditions should qualify under the court's definition of grievous and irremediable.[12] The BC Supreme Court and the Quebec Supreme court in Truchon ruled in 2019 that the law could not limit euthanasia only to individuals whose death was reasonably foreseeable.
The current law prohibits mental illnesses as being considered as a grievous and irremediable condition, but this prohibition was initially set to expire on 17 March 2024. On 2 February 2023, the Canadian government introduced legislation to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility in circumstances where a person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness for a period of one-year, until 17 March 2024.[13] In 2024, this was further delayed until 2027.[14] After this date, persons with a severe refractory mental illness will be eligible for medical assistance in dying, subject to any further amendments to the law or any new regulations.[15]
Ostensibly to prevent suicide tourism, Canada's current law makes euthanasia available only to residents eligible for Canadian healthcare coverage.[16]
Canada's euthanasia law includes some legal safeguards aimed at preventing abuse and ensuring informed consent. Neither the legal witness nor the physicians involved can have any legal or financial interest in the outcomes of the patient. Consent must be repeatedly expressed, not implied, including in the moment right before death. Consent can be revoked at any time, in any manner. There are no consequences for backing out and there are no limits to how often it can be requested. Doctors are permitted to suggest euthanasia to patients, regardless of whether the patient has already said that they do not want it.
To receive euthanasia, patients experiencing disease, disability or terminal illness must sign a written request expressing their wish to end their life in front of one independent witness who can confirm it was done willingly free of coercion. Next, two physicians and/or nurse practitioners must independently confirm their written agreement that the patient has an incurablegrievous and irremediable medical condition that is in an advanced state of irreversible decline, and that the patient is capable of receiving and willing to receive euthanasia. If their death is not reasonably foreseeable, a medical expert in the underlying medical condition must sign off on the request, their assessment must take at least 90 days, and they must be informed about and decline all other forms of treatment, including palliative care.
Intravenous Protocol
The patient must give written consent to receiving euthanasia at the time of the procedure. The patient is also given the opportunity to rescind verbally their request for euthanasia immediately prior to the procedure taking place.[17]
IV Drugs
A lethal dose of propofol is used for euthanasia in Canada to quickly induce deep coma and death, but rocuronium is always given—even when patient dies as a result of Propofol injection. Delivery order of IV medication is as follows, with saline flushes between medications:[17]
Step 1: Midazolam 10–20mg 2-4ml of 5mg/ml preparation (pre-anesthetic, induces sleep in 1–2 minutes).
Step 2: Lidocaine 40mg 4ml of 1% preparation; pause to allow effect. (reduces possible burning in a peripheral vein due to Propofol).
Step 3: Propofol 1000mg 100ml of 10mg/ml preparation (loss of consciousness within 10 seconds, induces coma in 1–2 minutes; death may result from the Propofol but Rocuronium is always given).
Step 4: Rocuronium 200mg 20ml of 10mg/ml preparation (cardiac arrest after Rocuronium injection usually occurs within 5 minutes of respiratory arrest).
Protocol Improvements
Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers recommends 3 main drugs to be used in euthanasia: Midazolam, Propofol and Rocuronium or Cisatracurium. Lidocaine and Bupivacaine are listed as optional drugs that can be used in addition to main drugs. Saline flushes between medications unnecessarily complicate the protocol. A saline flush may be considered following the administration of all medications when IV tubing of significant length and volume is employed.[18]
Canada's law on euthanasia
Bill C-14, passed on 17 June 2016 in Canada's Parliament was the original legislation that legalized and regulated euthanasia.[10] This legislation was amended by Bill C-7 in March 2021; it relaxed some of the safeguards for those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable and newly allowed those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable to access euthanasia.
This section outlines the details of this law. Strict rules govern access to euthanasia. If they are not met, anyone who aids another person in killing themselves is guilty of a crime.
Availability under the law
Under Canadian law, a person may access euthanasia only if they meet all of the following criteria:[19]
(a) be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility);
(b) be at least 18 years old and mentally competent (capable of making health care decisions for yourself);
(c) have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence; and
(e) give informed consent to receive MAID.
"Grievous and irremediable" medical condition
The law currently states that for a patient to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition eligible for assisted dying, they must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious illness, disease or disability (now including a serious mental illness as of 17 March 2024);
(b) they be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed; and
(c) they experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from the illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the patient considers acceptable.
When drafting the law in 2016, the last clause requiring death to be reasonably foreseeable had been controversial for how it narrowed the scope of the original Supreme Court of Canada ruling as it excluded most mental illnesses or long term disabilities.
Legal safeguards
Canada's original medical assistance in dying law had what it calls "robust safeguards to prevent errors and abuse in the provision of medical assistance in dying." The drafters of the law argue they protect vulnerable persons from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives.[19] Bill C-7's update to the law relaxes some of the safeguards for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable but retains or strengthens safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.
One independent witness
Any person who is at least 18 years of age and who understands the nature of the request can act as an independent witness, unless they:
(a) know or believe that they are a beneficiary under the will of the person making the request, or a recipient, in any other way, of a financial or other material benefit resulting from that person's death;
(b) are an owner or operator of any health care facility at which the person making the request is being treated or any facility in which that person resides;
(c) are directly involved in providing health care services to the person making the request; or
(d) directly provide personal care to the person making the request.
The original legislation required two independent witnesses to be present.
Two independent medical opinions
Two physicians or nurse practitioners involved must independently confirm via a written opinion both their agreement that a person has grievous and irremediable medical condition and their agreement that the patient is capable and willing of receiving euthanasia. The physicians or nurse practitioners making this determination must be independent, meaning that they:
(a) do not hold a position of authority over the other;
(b) could not knowingly benefit from the patient's death;
(c) is not connected to the other practitioner or to the person making the request in any other way that would affect their objectivity.
Signed written request
Any person seeking euthanasia must submit a written and signed request made in the presence of one independent witness. This independent witness cannot benefit from the person's death, be an owner or operator of a health care facility where that patient receives care, or be an unpaid caregiver. If the person is not able to write, another independent adult can sign the request under the person's clear direction.
Express consent required right before death
A patient who chooses euthanasia can revoke their consent at any time, in any manner, without fear of consequence. In addition to this, the law also requires the patient to be informed repeatedly and clearly that at any time they have a right to refuse euthanasia.
Patients must again give express consent of their wish to receive euthanasia immediately before they receive it, and they must also be given an opportunity to withdraw the request immediately before the procedure is performed.
If a patient has difficulty communicating, before the procedure can be performed, physicians must ensure that all necessary measures have been taken to ensure a reliable method of communicating with the patient exists, so that patients at all times can understand the information provided to them, and can adequately communicate any decision they make back.
Advance Directives
While Canada's original medical assistance in dying law prohibited advance directives because of the law's strict insistence on express consent being present at all times, Bill C-7 allowed an exception for people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable. Such advance directives could waive the final consent if they were signed if the following conditions were met while the patient had decision-making capacity:
(a) the patient was assessed and approved to receive euthanasia;
(b) the medial practitioner advised the patient that they were at risk of losing capacity to provide final consent; and
(c) the patient made a written arrangement with their medical practitioner in which they consented in advance to receive euthanasia on a specified date if they no longer have capacity to consent on that date.
Alternatively, final consent is not required if a person chooses to self-administer euthanasia.
Additional safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable
If a person seeks euthanasia but their death is not reasonably foreseeable, the following safeguards apply:
(a) one of the two practitioners who provides an assessment must have expertise in the medical condition that is causing the unbearable suffering;
(b) the person must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve your suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services, and palliative care, and the person must be offered consultations with professionals who provide those services;
(c) the person and their practitioners must have discussed reasonable and available means to relieve their suffering and all agree that the person has seriously considered those means;
(d) the person's eligibility assessment must take a minimum of 90 days, unless the assessments have been completed sooner and the person is at immediate risk of losing their capacity to consent; and
(e) immediately before euthanasia is provided, the practitioner must give you an opportunity to withdraw your request and ensure that you give express consent to receive euthanasia.
Permissiveness of current law
Canada's law is consistent with many other nations that allow euthanasia in requiring at least two physicians to confirm the details of a diagnosis.[20]
Canada's law is more restrictive than those of Belgium and the Netherlands in that it does not permit minors access to euthanasia. Canada will not allow euthanasia on the grounds of severe refractory mental illness, a practice allowed in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, until after 17 March 2024.[21][22][15]
While Belgium allows advanced directives in all circumstances, such advance directives in Canada may only be used if the patient's death is reasonably foreseeable.[23]
Canada's law no longer requires the presence of a terminal illness, like the Netherlands, Belgium's, Switzerland's, Austria's, Spain's, Italy's, Colombia's, Germany's, and Luxembourg's, allowance of euthanasia or assisted-suicide for people suffering from a long-term disability.[20]
Legal history
Ciarlariello v. Schacter
A 1993[24] decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada that established a patient's right to withdraw from a procedure that has already begun. Ms. Ciarlariello underwent two angiograms after experiencing bleeding in her brain. During the second procedure, she began to hyperventilate and asked the physician to stop the procedure. Nonetheless, the procedure was completed, and Ciarlariello experienced a severe reaction that left her quadriplegic.
Until recently, the most prominent case opposing euthanasia was that of Sue Rodriguez,[25] who after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) requested that the Canadian Supreme Court allow someone to aid her in ending her life. Her request appealed to the principle of autonomy and respect for every person, which states that "everyone has the right to self-determination subject only to an unjust infringement on the equal and competing rights of others".[26]
Her main argument for euthanasia, however, appealed to the principle of equality and justice, which states that "everyone should be treated equally, and deviations from equality of treatment are permissible only to achieve equity and justice".[27] The application of this principle to the case is as follows. Ms. Rodriguez's ALS would eventually lead her to lose her voluntary motor control. Therefore, this loss of motor control is a "handicap of ALS sufferers".[27]
Because suicide is not a crime, it was argued that Ms. Rodriguez was being discriminated against in her option of deciding to commit suicide with the help of another person due to her disability, without the law "providing a compensatory and equitable relief".[28] Though in 1992, the Court refused her request, two years later, Sue Rodriguez, with the help of an unknown doctor, ended her life despite the Court's decision. Due to her death, the Canadian medical profession issued a statement through Dr. Tom Perry and Dr. Peter Graff, who both said that they had assisted some of their patients in speeding up their death.
The Rodriguez case poses questions of the slippery slope argument. Sue Rodriguez argued that the Canadian government was violating her right to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter by robbing her of the freedom to end her life without assistance. Justice Sopinka stated that: "all persons who of the reason of disability are unable to commit suicide have a right to be free from government interference in procuring the assistance of others to take their life". However Justice McLachlin argued that: "our task was the much more modest one of determining whether, given the legislative scheme regulating suicide which Parliament has put in place, the denial to Sue Rodriguez of the ability to end her life is arbitrary and hence amounts to a limit on her security of the person which does not comport with the principles of fundamental justice". Chief Justice Lamer rejected this argument as a legal matter and stated: "While I share a deep concern over the subtle and overt pressures that may be brought to bear on such persons if assisted suicide is decriminalized, even in limited circumstances, I do not legalization that deprives a disadvantaged group of the right to equality can be justified solely on such speculative grounds, no matter how well-intentioned ... we simply do not and cannot know the range of implications that allowing some form of assisted suicide will have for persons with physical disabilities. What we do know and cannot ignore is the anguish of those in the position of Ms Rodriguez". The Chief Justice, however, did not recognize that Rodriguez was incapable of committing suicide and thus the court refused her request because the legal sanction of euthanasia did not constitute an active effort to restrict liberty and therefore, did not violate section 7 in that way.
R v Latimer
Robert Latimer is a Canadian canola and wheat farmer who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his daughter Tracy (23 November 1980– 24 October 1993). This case sparked a national controversy on the definition and ethics of euthanasia as well as the rights of people with disabilities and two Supreme Court decisions: R. v. Latimer (1997), on section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and later R. v. Latimer (2001), on cruel and unusual punishments under section 12 of the Charter.
Bills C-407 and C-384
In June 2005, Francine Lalonde introduced in Parliament a private Bill C-407 that would have legalized euthanasia in Canada, but the January 2006 election ended this bill. Lalonde was re-elected and reintroduced her bill to legalize euthanasia, which the 2008 election ended.
On 13 May 2009, Lalonde introduced another bill—Bill C-384—of the same nature as her other two attempts. The Bill was debated in the House of Commons, but died on 21 April 2010, in second reading House of Commons when the vote to advance Bill C-384 to the Justice and Human Rights committee failed 59 to 226. Nearly every member of the Bloc Québécois supported the legislation along with one independent and a handful of Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP) and Conservative MPs. Every other MP either abstained or voted against the bill.[29] Conservative Minister of Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher, who is Canada's first quadriplegicMember of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, made a public point of order after the vote to have an abstention recorded for the bill inviting for the discussion.[30]
Quebec National Assembly
On 5 June 2014, Quebec became the first Canadian province to pass legislation legalizing euthanasia. The Government of Canada challenged this measure but in December 2015, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed that the euthanasia law would stand in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General).[31]
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) decision
On 15 June 2012, in a case filed by Gloria Taylor, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting euthanasia were unconstitutional as they apply to severely disabled patients capable of giving consent. The lower court ruled that the Criminal Code provisions "infringe s. 7 [and s. 15 ] of the Charter, and are of no force and effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted suicide by a medical practitioner in the context of a physician-patient relationship". Moreover, the court found that the relevant sections were legislatively overbroad, had a disproportionate effect on people with disabilities, and was "grossly disproportionate to the objectives it is meant to accomplish."[32]
As a result of the decision, euthanasia was expected to be made legal for "a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition".[35]
The court decision includes a requirement that there must be stringent limits that are "scrupulously monitored". This will require the death certificate to be completed by an independent medical examiner, not the treating physician, to ensure the accuracy of reporting the cause of death.[36]
As required by the 2015 Supreme Court decision, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould tabled a bill in parliament in April 2016 to amend the Criminal Code to allow euthanasia.[37] Bill C-14 "create[s] exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process".[38] The bill will restrict euthanasia only to mentally competent adults with "enduring and intolerable suffering" and in cases where death is reasonably foreseeable. It also mandated a 10-day reflection period.[37]
After the House of Commons passed Bill C-14 that would allow for euthanasia, it was debated in the Senate in mid-June 2016. Initially, that chamber amended the bill, expanding eligibility for euthanasia. However, when it became apparent that the elected House of Commons would not accept the amendment, a final vote was held on 18 June. At that time, a majority agreed with the restrictive wording provided by the House of Commons indicating that "only patients suffering from an incurable illness whose natural death is 'reasonably foreseeable' are eligible for a medically assisted death", as summarized by the Toronto Star. Some opponents to the law indicate that the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) decision was broader, including desperately ill individuals and not only those who are terminally ill or near death. The House of Commons did accept a few Senate amendments, such as requiring that patients be counseled about alternatives including palliative care and barring beneficiaries from acting in the euthanasia. Senators such as Serge Joyal who disagree with the restrictive wording believe that the provinces should refer the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion in order to preclude the need for individuals to proceed with such an Appeal and incur the significant expense of doing so.[39]
There was also a debate on the issue of suicide in Indigenous communities with MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Liberal) voting against the government on C-14. This was the first instance of a government backbencher voting against their party. Ouellette felt that large-scale changes to social norms like euthanasia should move very slowly because the impacts will be felt differently across Canada and societies. "While the people of Toronto might want this, the impact in the North will be different. We are not islands unto ourselves."[40]
Truchon v Attorney General of Canada
On 11 September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec declared that restricting euthanasia to those whose death is reasonably foreseeable violated the Charter's guarantee to "life, liberty, and security of the person" as well as the Charter's guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.[41] The ruling declared the reasonably foreseeable clause in the federal euthanasia legislation to be unconstitutional, although the ruling only applied to Quebec. Neither the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General of Quebec appealed the decision as the federal government was prepared to introduce new euthanasia legislation to accommodate the ruling.
Bill C-7
The federal government passed Bill C-7 on 17 March 2021.[42] The new legislation relaxed or eliminated some of the safeguards for patients whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable, notably removing the 10-day waiting period, requiring only a single independent witness, and removing the requirement to offer palliative care. The legislation also introduced a new avenue for those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable to access euthanasia, conditional on the approval of medical practitioner who specialized in the underlying condition, a 90-day assessment period, and discussion on all other available treatment methods. The legislation also included a sunset clause that would allow people with severe refractory mental illnesses that have exhausted all treatment options to be eligible for euthanasia two years after the legislation passed. This clause has been particularly controversial due to the perceived difficulty of receiving informed consent from individuals suffering from a mental illness, particularly when the mental illness is already associated with a suicidal ideation.[43] However, multiple studies show that the majority of people with mental illnesses do not lack the mental competence or the capacity to make treatment-related decisions.[44][45][46][47] This expansion in access to medical assistance in dying was originally planned for March 2023 before being postponed by one year to 17 March 2024.[48]
A panel was established by the government to study potential issues and safeguards with implementing medical assistance in dying for people whose sole medical condition was a mental illness.[49] A report of this process was given to parliament on 6 May 2022. The panel had nineteen recommendations that could be implemented without amending the Criminal Code. Some arguments addressed to the panel suggested that there was no evidence that safeguards and protocols could be adequate and thus the panel's mandate could not be fulfilled. The panel concluded that despite these uncertainties, people could still voluntarily wish to request medical assistance in dying and thus its mandate could be fulfilled.[50] A person can simultaneously seek medical assistance in dying while waiting for other treatments.[51]
Statistics
The Fourth Annual Report on MAID released on Tuesday 24 October 2023.[52] This annual data offers an important overview of who is accessing MAID and whether there is safe and consistent delivery of MAID across the country. The 2022 data was congruent with data from previous years and suggests that eligible people across Canada are accessing this end-of-life option appropriately.
There have been 44,958 MAID deaths reported in Canada since the introduction of legislation in 2016. In 2022, 13,241 MAID provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada, this represents a growth rate of 31.2% over 2021. The average age of individuals at the time MAID was provided in 2022 was 77.0 years. The underlying medical conditions included cancer (63%), cardiovascular (18.8%), other at 14.9% (can be frailty, diabetes, chronic pain, autoimmune), respiratory (13.2%), and neurological conditions (12.6%). Seventy-seven percent of MAID recipients received palliative care and of the MAID recipients who did not receive palliative care 87.5% had access, a level similar to the three previous years.
Thirty-six percent of individuals who received MAID required disability support services, a decrease from 43.0% in 2021. For these individuals requiring disability support services, the majority, 89.5%, received these services.
NL
PE
NS
NB
QC
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
YT
NT
NU
Canada
2016
–
–
24
9
494
191
24
11
63
194
–
–
–
1,018
2017
–
–
62
49
853
839
63
57
205
677
–
–
–
2,838
2018
23
8
126
92
1,236
1,500
138
85
307
951
12
–
–
4,480
2019
18
20
147
141
1,602
1,788
177
97
377
1,280
13
–
–
5,661
2020
49
37
188
160
2,275
2,378
214
157
555
1,572
13
–
–
7,603
2021
65
40
245
204
3,281
3,102
245
243
591
2,030
15
–
–
10,064
2022
90
44
274
247
4,801
3,934
223
257
836
2,515
16
–
–
13,241
Total 2016–2022
267
156
1,068
903
14,578
13,732
1,084
914
2,937
9,219
84
–
–
44,958
Public support and opposition
a 2023 survey by the Angus Reid Insititute showed 61% of Canadians supported the current version of the legislation, while 31% supported extending euthanasia to mental disorders. [53]
A poll conducted by Leger in the summer of 2022 regarding further liberalization of Canada's euthanasia laws found that 51% of Canadians supported expanding euthanasia to mature minors, with 23% opposed and 26% being unsure. 65% supported advanced directives in the face of a worsening cognitive condition, with 14% opposed and 22% being unsure. 45% supported expanding eligibility for euthanasia to include individuals with serious mental health illnesses, with 23% opposed and 32% being unsure of their position.[54]
Professional support and opposition
Quebec College of Physicians
Before euthanasia was made legal in Quebec in June 2014,[31] the Quebec College of Physicians had declared that it was prepared to cross the line on the debate over euthanasia and proposed that it be included as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.[55]
Canadian Medical Association
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) describes euthanasia as "one of the most complex and ethically challenging issues facing Canadian physicians".[56]
Before the February 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Canadian Medical Association had maintained that it is not up to them to decide on the issue of euthanasia, but the responsibility of society. Though in 1995, the Canadian Senate Committee decided that euthanasia should remain illegal, they recommended that a new category of crime be specifically created for those charged with assisting in suicide, called "compassionate suicide".[57]
The Canadian Medical Association reported that not all doctors were willing to help a terminally-ill patient die. A 2015 survey indicated that 29% of Canadian doctors surveyed would consider providing euthanasia while 63% would refuse.[58] However, the belief in late 2015 was that no physician would be forced to do so.[59] The extent of conscientious objection to providing euthanasia continues to be debated on issues such as whether objecting physicians must refer patients to a doctor who is willing to provide euthanasia and whether institutions have a right to refuse to provide euthanasia services; at present doctors are required to make “effective referrals.” [60][61]
The CMA also supported the request to the Supreme Court for a six-month extension, said CMA spokesman Dr. Jeff Blackmer, in order to develop educational materials and to train numerous physicians across Canada. However, by late 2015, the CMA had begun to offer educational sessions to members as to the process that would be used.[59]
Controversy
Canada's practice of euthanasia has received significant attention worldwide because of its permissive scope and because of reported abuse of the system.[2][62][4][5][63][64][65]
In 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities criticized Bill C-7 and assisted death in general, for undermining both disabled people’s equal right to live and their ability to autonomously access support to continue living.[3]
In 2019, Alan Nichols successfully applied for MAiD while being hospitalized for suicide ideation.[66] In February 2022, an anonymous Torontonian suffering from extreme chemical sensitivity syndrome with the pseudonym Sophia had a medically assisted death after failing to find affordable housing that was free from tobacco smoke and other chemicals.[67] This case was addressed by her health care provider in testimony provided to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, and was referenced in their final report.[68]
In November 2022, an anonymous active Canadian Forces member has alleged he was offered MAID when seeking assistance regarding PTSD and suicidal thoughts,[69] raising concern about MAID being inappropriately offered. In December 2022, Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier testified that a Veterans Affairs Canada employee offered her MAID as an option when she is fighting for installing a wheelchair lift or ramp at her house.[70] Subsequently, the VA claimed they found no record that MAID has been offered as an option to Gauthier and that it found four such cases, all involving a single now-suspended case manager.[71]
In December 2022, Canadian writer Alexander Raikin revealed that the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) has organized training seminars on patients who sought MAiD due to socio-economic factors such as poverty and loneliness, cases CAMAP denied could occur under the Canadian system.[72][73] In August 2022, Vancouver Coastal Health asked patients seeking mental healthcare for suicidal ideation if they would like to consider MAiD, which the patients experienced as undermining their access to suicide prevention care; the hospital claimed the suggestion was a method of assessing suicide risk.[74]
In an August 2023 paper, Medical Assistance in Dying, Palliative Care, Safety, and Structural Vulnerability, Drs. Downar, MacDonald and Buchman conclude that socioeconomic deprivation drives mortality to a large degree, but it does not drive medical assistance in dying to any substantial degree.[75]
In 2023, four medical specialists concluded in a study that "The Canadian MAiD regime is lacking the safeguards, data collection, and oversight necessary to protect Canadians against premature death."[76]
Euthanasia is the practise of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering.
Assisted suicide – sometimes referred to as medical aid in dying – means a procedure in which people take medications to end their own lives with the help of others, usually medical professionals. The term usually refers to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which is an end of life measure for a person suffering a painful, terminal illness. Once it is determined that the person's situation qualifies under the physician-assisted suicide laws for that location, the physician's assistance is usually limited to writing a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs.
An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.
The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of the right to die is often bestowed with the understanding that a person with a terminal illness, incurable pain, or without the will to continue living should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate.
Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer, dementia or advanced heart disease than for injury. In popular use, it indicates a disease that will progress until death with near absolute certainty, regardless of treatment. A patient who has such an illness may be referred to as a terminal patient, terminally ill or simply as being terminal. There is no standardized life expectancy for a patient to be considered terminal, although it is generally months or less. Life expectancy for terminal patients is a rough estimate given by the physician based on previous data and does not always reflect true longevity. An illness which is lifelong but not fatal is a chronic condition.
Voluntary euthanasia is the ending of a person's life at their request in order to relieve them of suffering. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of intense debate in recent years.
Suicide is a crime in some parts of the world. However, while suicide has been decriminalized in many countries, the act is almost universally stigmatized and discouraged. In some contexts, suicide could be utilized as an extreme expression of liberty, as is exemplified by its usage as an expression of devout dissent towards perceived tyranny or injustice which occurred occasionally in cultures such as ancient Rome, medieval Japan, or today's Tibet Autonomous Region.
Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act" which was passed in 2001 and took effect in 2002. It states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care. These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering, the information provided to the patient, the absence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life. To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a review committee.
Involuntary Euthanasia is currently illegal in all 50 states of the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions in the US: Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington. The status of assisted suicide is disputed in Montana, though currently authorized per the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in Baxter v. Montana that "nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes [indicates] that physician aid in dying is against public policy."
Dignity in Dying is a United Kingdom nationwide campaigning organisation. It is funded by voluntary contributions from members of the public, and as of December 2010, it claimed to have 25,000 actively subscribing supporters. The organisation declares it is independent of any political, religious or other affiliations, and has the stated primary aim of campaigning for individuals to have greater choice and more control over end-of-life decisions, so as to alleviate any suffering they may be undergoing as they near the end of their life.
Dignitas is a Swiss nonprofit organization providing physician-assisted suicide to members with terminal illness or severe physical or mental illness, supported by independent Swiss doctors. By the end of 2020, they had assisted 3,248 people with suicide at home within Switzerland and at Dignitas' house/flat near Zürich. They provide advisory work on palliative care, health care advance directives, suicide attempt prevention, and legislation for right-to-die laws around the world.
The legality of euthanasia varies between countries and territories. Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries have met with limited success in Western countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most advocacy organisations although medical associations express a range of perspectives, and supporters of palliative care broadly oppose euthanasia.
Initiative 1000 (I-1000) of 2008 established the U.S. state of Washington's Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes medical aid in dying with certain restrictions. Passage of this initiative made Washington the second U.S. state to permit some terminally ill patients to determine the time of their own death. The effort was headed by former Governor Booth Gardner.
Euthanasia became legal in New Zealand when the End of Life Choice Act 2019 took full effect on 7 November 2021. It is illegal to "aid and abet suicide" under Section 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961. The clauses of this act make it an offence to "incite, procure or counsel" and "aid and abet" someone else to commit suicide, regardless of whether a suicide attempt is made or not. Section 179 covers both coercion to undertake assisted suicide and true suicide, such as that caused by bullying. This will not change under the End of Life Choices Act 2019, which has provisions on coercion of terminally ill people.
Laws regarding euthanasia or assisted suicide in Australia are matters for state and territory governments. As of November 2023 all states have implemented legislation creating an assisted suicide scheme for eligible individuals. These laws typically refer to assisted suicide as "voluntary assisted dying".
Assisted suicide is suicide with the aid of another person. In the United States, the term "assisted suicide" is typically used to describe what proponents refer to as medical aid in dying, in which terminally ill adults are prescribed and self-administer barbiturates if they feel that they are suffering significantly. The term is often used interchangeably with physician-assisted suicide (PAS), "physician-assisted dying", "physician-assisted death", "assisted death" and "medical aid in dying" (MAiD).
Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"). In a unanimous decision on February 6, 2015, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's assistance in dying. This ruling overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide.
Seales v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1239 was a 2015 court case concerned with whether a doctor could assist a terminally ill patient in ending her own life. Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, terminally ill from a brain tumour, sought High Court declarations to the effect that her doctor would not be committing murder, manslaughter or assisting a suicide if he assisted in her euthanasia. Seales also sought, as an alternative, that the court make declarations that the Crimes Act was not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court declined to make any of the declarations sought by Seales. Seales died of her illness the day after the judgment was delivered.
Act 39 of 2013 established the U.S. state of Vermont's Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act, which legalizes medical aid in dying with certain restrictions. Vermont was the first state to enact this Law through legislative action; it permits some terminally ill patients to determine the time of their own death.
The End of Life Choice Act 2019 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that gives people with a terminal illness the option of receiving assisted suicide or euthanasia. The act came into force on 7 November 2021, twelve months after the 2020 euthanasia referendum was declared in favour of the legislation.
↑ Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence", in Prado, C. G. (ed.), Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives, Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, p.83
↑ Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence", in Prado, C. G. (ed.), Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives, Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, p.84
1 2 Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence", in Prado, C. G. (ed.), Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives, Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, p.86
↑ Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence", in Prado, C. G. (ed.), Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives, Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, p.87
1 2 Shingler, Benjamin (22 December 2015). "Quebec's top court rules assisted dying law can go ahead". CBC News. CBC/Radio Canada. Retrieved 5 January 2016. Quebec's Court of Appeal has maintained the province's right to allow terminally ill patients the choice to die with medical help, the first law of its kind in Canada.
↑ Whiting, Raymond (2002), A Natural Right to Die: Twenty-Three Centuries of Debate, Westport, Connecticut, p.41{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑ Sumner, L. W. (2020). "Conscientious refusal to provide medically assisted dying". University of Toronto Law Journal. 71 (1): 1–31. doi:10.3138/utlj-2020-0053. S2CID225245227.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
