Here we go again.
A B.C. judge blocked the medically assisted death of a 53-year-old Alberta woman after her common-law spouse alleged that MAID was granted for a condition that does not qualify – namely, a mental illness.
It resembles an Alberta case back in March where a father tried to prevent his 27-year-old daughter from accessing MAID. In that instance, after initially granting an injunction, the judge threw out the case, stressing that patients have autonomy in their medical decision-making and that the doctor-patient relationship is sacrosanct.
This more recent case will almost certainly end similarly, but not before much harm is done.
These cases follow a well-worn playbook of anti-choice activists. You take a deeply personal, intimate decision like MAID (or abortion, or transgender care) and force a person unwittingly into the public spotlight through litigation and media manipulation.
You provide one-sided information about the patient, who has no interest in responding publicly. You make inflammatory allegations about health care providers who must respect the patient’s privacy. It’s all considered fair game because the media stories feature the throwaway phrase “none of these allegations have been proven in court.”
And, as if the shaming and humiliating of a distressed patient is not enough, you try to pretend that you’re being caring and compassionate.
In the most recent ruling – a temporary injunction that prevents the woman’s assisted death from proceeding for 30 days, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Simon R. Coval acknowledged that the injunction is a “severe intrusion into [the woman’s] personal and medical autonomy.” (There is a publication ban on the names of the plaintiff and defendant.)
But the judge goes on to say that serious questions have been raised about “whether there should be judicial oversight.”
Yet, both the Supreme Court of Canada (in its landmark 2015 ruling striking down previous assisted-dying legislation) and Parliament (in drafting a law legalizing medically assisted death) have cautioned that there is no role for judicial oversight.
Decisions about medical procedures are to be made between a patient and their physician, and the oversight function rests with licensing bodies and related authorities.
In B.C., all cases are reviewed by an oversight unit in the provincial Ministry of Health. The committee members verify compliance with eligibility criteria, and ensure that safeguards and professional regulatory-college practice standards for MAID have been respected. Presumably, if this Alberta woman’s MAID procedure was scheduled for Oct. 27 at 8 pm, it had been appropriately reviewed and signed off on.
Yet, the injunction contains grave, unproven allegations against the provider, Dr. Ellen Wiebe, suggesting she wrongly and recklessly approved MAID. It’s not the first time she has been subjected to scurrilous attacks.
Dr. Wiebe testified to a parliamentary committee back in 2022 that she had assessed 750 people and carried out 430 MAID procedures. Anti-choice activists often trot out this number as if it’s a scarlet letter. But how is that different from a doctor conducting 430 heart surgeries or 430 hip replacements?
There are roughly 96,000 doctors and 9,000 nurse practitioners in Canada; only 1,837 of them provided MAID in 2022 (the most recent year for which data are available.)
One of the allegations in the current civil suit is that the patient went doctor-shopping to find someone willing to perform MAID. But when less than 2 per cent of practitioners are willing to conduct the procedure, you have little choice but to do so.
The key element of this case, however, is that the woman requesting MAID suffers only from mental health conditions – bipolar disorder and akathisia – and that they are treatable.
Again, we have only the claims of the common-law spouse; we don’t know the patient’s full medical history – nor is it any of the public’s business. If you suffer from a physical condition that causes grievous and irremediable harm, having a concurrent mental illness does not disqualify you from MAID. There is also no legal obligation to seek treatment, whether you suffer from cancer or akathisia. It’s quality of life that matters.
Still, applicants whose sole medical condition is mental illness will eventually become eligible for MAID, in March of 2027. Advance requests for people with dementia will be legal soon, too. They already are in Quebec.
In the meantime, we need to ensure we figure how to deal with complex MAID cases fairly and compassionately, balancing the rights of individuals with their protection and safety.
There are serious issues to be addressed. But cases like this one demonstrate that litigation is not the way to do so.