Responding to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.

The Committee has extended the time frame for receiving submissions to May 30, 2022.

We need your comments to be heard by the members of the Committee. The Committee is accepting submissions of no more than 1000 words.

Send submissions to the commitee by E-mail: AMAD@parl.gc.ca or Fax: 613-947-3089 

When Canada legalized MAiD (euthanasia) the legislation (Bill C-14) required that a five year review be conducted starting in June 2020. The federal government decided to expand the legislation (Bill C-7), before reviewing the law. After passing Bill C-7 the government established a committee for the review.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was reconvened on April 8, 2022, where Senators and MPs were given five topics related to MAiD in Canada. The topics of study are:

• MAiD for mature minors,
• Advance directives for MAiD,
• Regulations for Psychiatric MAiD once the C7 sunset clause is lifted March 2023,
  
• The state of palliative care in Canada (was required as part of the 5 year review after C-14 but never completed),
• Protections for persons with disabilities.
  

You will notice that a "review of the law" seems to have been lost as the government appears to be planning for further expansions of MAiD.

We need your comments to be heard by the members of the Committee. The Committee is accepting submissions of no more than 1000 words.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is writing a submission for the committee. Your comments are also important to the committee.

For those who have a personal experience or story please submit it to the Committee at: E-mail: AMAD@parl.gc.ca or Fax: 613-947-3089 

You can also email your submission directly to the Members of Parliament and Senators that are on the committee. (Link to Committee members).

The government continues to ignore the commitment of having a full review of the law while pushing further expansions, but your voice can and needs to be heard.

The truly awful cost of Canada's permissive assisted death program

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's National Post published an excellent editorial on May 8, 2022 titled: The truly awful cost of Canada's permissive assisted death program.

The following are excerpts from their editorial that begins with their warning from 2015:

After Quebec became the first Canadian jurisdiction to allow assisted suicide in 2014, we warned that , “A great deal of research and reporting on those jurisdictions that permit euthanasia and/or assisted suicide suggest that the words ‘slippery slope’ are more than mere alarmism, as proponents of euthanasia tend to insist. In every state or country in which the practice has been normalized, it has also, to some degree, become banalized, with eligibility criteria increasingly relaxed. Common patterns in all jurisdictions in Europe that allow euthanasia or assisted suicide show increasing numbers over time, and a shift from a focus on terminal cancer to other diseases, including psychiatric conditions.”

We sincerely wish we’d been wrong. We’re not against the idea of assisted death in some strict cases, but this country has evolved into one where the lives of those in pain are treated cavalierly, as if they don’t matter. Canada has not only adopted a nationwide MAID program, it has extended it to those who are not at imminent risk of dying and will soon see many more vulnerable Canadians become eligible. Yet even before it’s officially expanded to encompass those suffering from psychological disorders, the system has permitted questionable decisions about who qualifies for an assisted death, leading to abhorrent outcomes.

The editorial continues with the recent cases of MAID for people with chemical sensitivities, a condition that requires a clean place to live.

Last month, CTV ran a heartrending story about “Sophia,” a 51-year-old Toronto woman who suffered from a disorder known as “multiple chemical sensitivities,” which was aggravated by her neighbours’ cigarette smoke that would waft into her apartment and the chemical cleaners that were used in the hallways. Sophia spent two years petitioning her landlord, the Salvation Army, and all levels of government to make accommodations for her, or find a more suitable place for her to live. After repeatedly failing, she requested MAID — and was granted a state-sanctioned assisted death.

CTV also reported the story of a 31-year-old Toronto woman identified as “Denise,” who also suffers from chemical sensitivities and uses a wheelchair. Like Sophia, Denise has been applying for government assistance to find more suitable accommodations, but says that it was easier to apply for MAID. “I’ve applied for MAID essentially … because of abject poverty,” she said. And so far, she’s received all the necessary approvals, without anyone involved asking her about her efforts to find housing that is more accessible and free from the chemicals that aggravate her condition.

Whatever gloss about a dignified death advocates want to use to justify MAID, these are people suffering most of all from poverty. Euthanizing the poor can’t be what liberals who support physician assisted death had in mind. How much more common will cases like this be when MAID is extended to those with mental illness, who are disproportionately poor?

The editorial states that the Canadian MAID program has gone too far. They also comment on the recent case of Donna Duncan who was living with a head injury.

It’s clear that the regime has gone far beyond offering assisted deaths to competent adults suffering from “grievous and irremediable” conditions, which is what the Supreme Court said Canadians have a charter right to in 2015. It has also gone beyond the 2019 Quebec Superior Court ruling, which said that it was unconstitutional to limit MAID to those whose deaths were “reasonably foreseeable.” That is what the Liberals used to justify their much-less-restrictive law, Bill C-7 , which was enacted without appealing to the Supreme Court.

There are also questions about whether the existing system is putting to death those who are not competent enough to make such life-altering — indeed, life-ending — decisions. Police in Abbotsford, B.C., are currently investigating the case of Donna Duncan, who was euthanized despite the objections of her family doctor and two daughters, who say she was not of sound mind after suffering a head injury in 2020. Such concerns about mental competence will only increase once it becomes legal for people with mental health challenges to apply for MAID.

The National Post concludes the editorial by calling on the government to tighten the rules for MAID.

Unlike with the initial MAID law, which was necessitated by a Supreme Court ruling, expanding eligibility to those with mental illness was never ordered by the courts. It was a political decision that resulted from a Senate amendment to Bill C-7 that was accepted by the House of Commons. The government knew enough to delay its implementation for two years and strike an expert panel to make recommendations on how it would work in practice. Yet after only a year, it has become clear that even before the mental health provisions come into effect, Bill C-7 is causing a great deal of harm. Parliament should revisit the legislation and tighten up the rules surrounding MAID eligibility, including ensuring that people with mental illnesses receive the treatment they deserve, rather than an expedited departure from this earth.

More articles on this topic:

• MAID (euthanasia) for chemical sensitivities (Link). 
• Euthanasia for 31-year-old woman with chemical sensitivities (Link).
• Abbotsford police investigating MAID (euthanasia) death (Link).
  

Assisted suicide must not be confused with palliative care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr. Ebru Kaya is an associate professor of medicine and the president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) and Dr. Leonie Herx is division chair and associate professor of palliative medicine at Queen’s University and a past president of the CSPCP wrote an opinion article that was published by the Globe and Mail on May 9, titled: Assisted dying must not be confused with palliative care.

The context for the article is the government committee that is examining the expansion of MAID to children (mature minors) and incompetent people who requested death in their advanced directive. Kaya and Herx continue:

While access to MAID is guaranteed in Canada, access to palliative care and other supports, including home and disability services, are not – and worse, MAID is being provided at the expense of already limited palliative care resources. No one should feel compelled to choose an early death because of inadequate care. Tragically, too many physicians know of patients who opted for MAID due to lack of adequate palliative home-care resources to remain in their homes or communities.

Palliative care is a vital service, with clear economic, health and social benefits. It provides medical assistance in living (MAIL) through early identification and impeccable assessment and management of pain and other symptoms – physical, emotional, social and spiritual – that enhance quality of life, reduce depression and anxiety, reduce caregiver distress and may even help people live longer; it does not hasten death, nor does it end life. The National Framework on Palliative Care received unanimous support by parliamentarians in 2018. Yet palliative care has not received the necessary investments and attention to make it a reality for Canadians.

They explain that Canadians lack the necessary information to seek palliative care, rather than MAID but then MAID is now being integrated with palliative care. They write:

Moreover, many palliative care services have had to integrate MAID into their programs in order to continue to receive provincial or federal funding, even though they are fundamentally different. As a result, already scarce resources – including hospice and palliative care unit beds, as well as skilled nurses and doctors – have been diverted to support MAID services.

Palliative care must remain separate from MAID to avoid the risk of confusion between the two. This is especially important for communities that have an underlying distrust of the health care system who decline palliative care because they confuse it with MAID. This does not preclude people who contemplate, request or opt for MAID from receiving palliative care – but in order to make informed choices, patients and family caregivers need to know what palliative care actually has to offer.

They then point out how MAID is an act that is used by the privileged:

As a person approaches the end of his or her life, the inevitable physical decline is viewed in Western European culture as undignified, full of suffering, and a burden on caregivers. However, this belief is not shared by all cultures. Indeed, it should be noted that white, well-educated and wealthy Canadians have led the advocacy for legalization and expansion of MAID; it is not, however, this demographic that bears the pressures to choose MAID due to lack of access to palliative care and other supports needed to live. The government focus on MAID thus disproportionately benefits the already privileged, while continuing to underserve the rest of our society who might not have the same values or advantages.

They conclude that MAID should not be associated or confused with palliative care.

Canadian legislation positioned palliative care as a safeguard to address suffering that might otherwise lead to MAID, and it has led to a tension between MAID and palliative care. As a result, physicians and organizations such as the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians are seen as opposing MAID or obstructing access to MAID when they advocate for palliative care to address suffering.

The expansion of MAID should not be considered without first addressing fundamental problems of inadequate access to care and resources. The expectation that MAID and MAIL can develop in parallel is a fantasy – and the most vulnerable among us risk paying the price.

Thank you Dr's Kaya and Herx for once again defending the proper use of palliative care.

More articles on this topic:

• The Delta Hospice Society continues to fight for safe places to die (Link).
•  Study shows negative impact of MAiD on palliative care in Canada (Link).
  

Join the Conservative Party to vote for a leader that opposes (MAiD)

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On September 10, 2022 members of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) will have the opportunity to vote for a new party leader. Every Canadian who purchases a membership in the CPC before June 3 will be able to vote for a new CPC party leader.

A one year CPC membership is $15 (CPC membership link).

Supporters of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) are not a monolithic group, nonetheless, joining the Conservative Party to vote for a leader that opposes euthanasia (MAiD) is important.

In March 2021 the CPC re-affirmed its opposition to (MAiD) euthanasia at its online policy convention. (Link)

EPC is assessing the positions of the leadership candidates and will inform our supporters of their positions.

The approved leadership candidates are: Scott Aitchison, Roman Baber, Patrick Brown, Jean Charest, Leslyn Lewis and Pierre Poilievre. Some of these candidates support MAiD.

Whether you support the principles of the CPC or not, EPC encourages Canadians who oppose MAiD to purchase a CPC membership and vote for a leadership candidate that opposes MAiD.

A one year CPC membership is $15 (CPC membership link).

Euthanasia is a runaway train in Canada. It's time to hit the brakes.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brian Bird

Brian Bird, who is an assistant professor at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of B.C. wrote a Special article that was published by the National Post on May 4, 2022. Bird explains why the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD), that is currently holding hearings on further expanding Canada's euthanasia (MAiD), should instead stop any further expansions of the law. Bird writes:

By next year, Canada may have journeyed — in only seven years — from a total prohibition on euthanasia to euthanasia at an adult’s deathbed to euthanasia for mental and physical illness at any moment of an adult’s life. The speed with which we have travelled on an issue of tectonic societal significance, and the territory we have covered, should raise questions about the wisdom of our approach. Advocates say it is progress. I worry it is a runaway train.

Bird continues:

I believe that euthanasia, in any form, is the wrong choice for a society. It opens a Pandora’s box of risk. It also sends disturbing messages, teaching that human life is a depreciating asset with a “best before” date or that certain conditions are a “fate worse than death.” Human dignity — each person’s intrinsic worth and value — never disappears, no matter how dire the circumstances may be.

Bird then responds to the issue of euthanasia for mental illness:

No court in Canada has held that the charter demands euthanasia for mental illness. I hope the courts never reach this conclusion. Apart from my skepticism that the right to “life, liberty, and security of the person” calls for euthanasia in any form, granting euthanasia to persons with mental illness would arguably violate this charter right. If a person’s mental illness inclines that person to suicidal ideation, does the government not jeopardize that person’s life by offering that person assisted suicide?

Bird questions how euthanasia can be a "free choice" when palliative care is not readily available. He continues by challenging governments for forcing hospices to participate in euthanasia. He writes:

At times, euthanasia has even undermined access to palliative care. In British Columbia, a private hospice — a facility dedicated to caring for individuals nearing death — was shuttered last year after it conscientiously refused to offer euthanasia. Provincial authorities forced the hospice to close even after it proposed to operate without public funds, though it was reopened under direct public control.

It’s one thing to legalize euthanasia. It’s another thing to coerce people to get on board with it or get out of health care. This totalitarian approach which assumes that every citizen supports euthanasia is unbecoming of a free and democratic society that features a range of views on this topic. And if there is any sector of society where freedom of conscience should be robust, health care is it. The interests at stake — life, death, human dignity — demand nothing less.

Bird concludes his article by encouraging our government to reject the expansion of euthanasia.

Despite the alarm bells, Canada may soon have one of the most permissive euthanasia laws in the world. Besides euthanasia for mental illness, the parliamentary committee currently at work is also exploring euthanasia for mature minors and allowing advance consent to euthanasia.

But our lawmakers can still reject any further expansion of euthanasia in this country. They need not think that the only way forward is making euthanasia more available to more Canadians. Hitting the brakes on euthanasia may be the increasingly unpopular choice. But it’s the right thing to do.

Article: Responding to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (Link).

Euthanasia, where and when does it stop?

By Nic Steenhout, Disability rights advocate and the former Director of Vivre dans la Dignité

Nic Steenhout

It is with great sadness and a fair bit of distress that I learned about two recent cases of so-called "Medical Aid In Dying" (euthanasia by any other name). The stories of two disabled women who were pushed to apply for MAID because their circumstances didn't allow them the choice of living would be distressing for most of us.

It is hitting me particularly hard because less than 10 years ago, I was saying that if Québec, and then Canada, legalized euthanasia, it wouldn't take long before people with disabilities no worse than my own, that were not at end of life, would be able to apply for and be granted euthanasia.

I really hate to say "I told you so". I hate even more that I was right.

The government said at the time: "there's not going to be a slippery slope". They lied. They called me alarmist. As it turns out, I was not exaggerating the dangers.

On April 13, 2022, CTV was reporting the story of a 51 year old woman which multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) who could not find housing. She applied for and was given medical aid in dying.

On April 30, 2022, CTV again reports the story of a disabled woman who could not find housing and applied for euthanasia. This time, the woman is 31, also with MCS, and a wheelchair user. She hasn't yet been killed.

These two women were not given the options to live. Finding wheelchair accessible housing is next to impossible to start with. Finding affordable wheelchair accessible housing is even more difficult. Throw in the need to be protected from chemical exposures, and it becomes really thorny. So thorny that people search for years before being able to find, and opt for death instead.

What are we doing to disabled people? The governmental disability benefits are laughable. Who can find housing, let alone paying all other life necessities, including food, on $1,000 or so a month? The amounts of disability benefits haven't increased in a very long time in Canada. It's almost as if disabled people don't count. It's cheaper to provide euthanasia than support disabled citizens appropriately.

It gets even more interesting when we see that the government was able to unlock funds to help workers through being out of work during the pandemic's early days. The message from our government is very clear. Disabled people don't count.

I haven't been active in the fight against euthanasia (regardless of the name we give it) for the last several years because these public stories, and some very personal ones, just ate at me. It is ironic that as an opponent to euthanasia, I had two family members and a close friend apply for it, and die from it.

My grand mother, in Belgium, died from euthanasia. She was 98 years old. She had some vision issues, and needed a walker to move around. She was most certainly not at imminent risk of dying. But she was incredibly lonely with her family across an ocean.

My aunt, in Québec, was 77 years old. She had Multiple Sclerosis. She'd had a lung removed because of lung cancer, but she'd been in remission for years.

My friend John was in his early 60's. He had cancer. But he was well away from imminent death. He was grocery shopping and preparing meals for the freezer for his spouse the day before his euthanasia.

These three people did not meet the so-called safeguards that the pro-euthanasia crowd said would protect vulnerable people. So even with safeguards in place, there are people dying from euthanasia that shouldn't be. And now... Now we just keep expanding the eligibility criteria.

Where does it stop? When do we decide that supporting disabled people is the right investment in our society, rather than allowing them to die? When do we stop funding suicide prevention programs? Because it's not that far of a stretch to see this happen.

10 years ago I was saying that people with disabilities no worse than my own would soon have access to medical aid in dying. I was right. Please don't let me be right about the elimination of funding for suicide prevention programs. Please.

If you're reading this, it's likely that you already have strong feelings about euthanasia. You're probably outraged by these recent news stories. It's been said before, but we all need to talk to our elected representatives. Personal notes, phone calls, even emails. Let's let them know this is not ok. Let them know that enough is enough. The horse has bolted, we can't close the barn doors. But we can try and fence it in. We can try and limit further erosion.

Euthanizing the mentally ill without providing proper supports is reprehensible

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sabrina Maddeaux and Tristan Hopper have both written excellent articles challenging Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) regime that were published in the National Post. Maddeaux focuses on the proposal to extend euthanasia to people with mental illnesswhile Hopper examines the issue how MAiD is becoming an option for Canada's poor.

Maddeaux refers to the proposal to extend euthanasia to people with mental illness alone as being a form of eugenics. Maddeaux gains our attention by beginning her article by stating:

For a nation that takes so much pride in our so-called universal health-care system, it’s ironic that we’ll soon be closer to offering universal death care than passable medicare.

Maddeaux explains that with the passing of Bill C-7, euthanasia for mental illness will become an option for Canadians in March 2023. Sadly, I believe that euthanasia for mental illness has already become an option, even though the rules for these deaths have not yet been established.

Maddeaux then points out the recent euthanasia death of the 51-year-old woman with chronic chemical sensitivities who only required better housing and then she writes about the recent story of a 31-year-old with chronic chemical sensitivities who was approved for MAiD.

Maddeaux then writes about the Abbotsford police investigation into the MAiD death of Donna Duncan.

Maddeaux then focuses on the problems with and lack of mental health care in Canada and states:

With mental illness poised for eligibility, the country is on the brink of sponsoring what essentially amounts to opt-in eugenics.

Maddeaus finishes her article by challenging the government's lack of mental health care and how MAiD is now becoming a way out of living with unacceptable conditions rather than a true choice. She writes:

But where this crosses from standard government neglect to a humanitarian issue is when MAID enters the equation. It’s one thing to fail the mentally ill — it’s quite another to kill them without offering them an effective alternative. Making access to death easier and cheaper than access to care renders the idea of real choice in the matter more twisted than a reflection in a fun-house mirror.

The legality and morality of MAID is rooted in a patient’s ability to consider all the options and make an informed decision — a process Canada has failed to adequately clarify and enforce, even before granting eligibility to the mentally ill.

If Canada is to expand MAID and become one of the world’s most permissive jurisdictions, it must ensure individuals have true autonomy. This necessitates providing the basic minimum standards of living and care to balance the scales against such a grave alternative. We cannot in good conscience become a nation where people are freer to die than they are to live without suffering.

Maddeaux is right in her assessment and yet today I was reading Twitter comments from Canada's euthanasia lobby and they are simply deadly and cruel with comments that questioning why people like us were concerned since, as they stated, MAiD is simply a "choice" even for the mentally ill. 

Euthanasia approved for 31 year-old-woman with chemical sensitivities based on abject poverty

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A few weeks ago I published an article about a (MAiD) euthanasia death of a 51-year-old Ontario woman who had severe chemical sensitivities.

CTV National News Medical Correspondent, Avis Favaro, reported on April 13 reported that the woman was not terminally ill but living with a chronic condition where she was living with chemical sensitivities and environmental allergies.

Link to the article: (MAiD) euthanasia for chemical sensitivies and housing.

On April 30th, Favaro reported on a case of a 31-year-old Ontario woman who has been approved for (MAiD) euthanasia for chemical sensitivities. Favaro reports that Denise (not her real name) is diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), which triggers rashes, difficulty breathing, and blinding headaches called hemiplegic migraines that cause her temporary paralysis. Favaro reports:

The chemicals that make her sick, are cigarette smoke, laundry chemicals, and air fresheners. She is at risk of anaphylactic shock and so has EpiPens at all times in case she has a life-threatening allergic attack.

Denise is also a wheelchair user after a spinal cord injury six years ago and has other chronic illnesses.In March 2021, the Canadian goverment passed Bill C-7 which permitted (MAiD) euthanasia for people who were not terminally ill, but living with chronic conditions. This has resulted in approvals to lethally inject (MAiD) people with treatable chronic conditions and it is exposing the reality that people with chronic conditions are often living in abject poverty and poor living conditions.

According to Favaro, Denise applied for MAiD based on abject poverty.

She desperately wants to move to an apartment that’s wheelchair accessible and has cleaner air. But her only income is from Ontario’s Disability Support Program (ODSP). She receives a total of $1,169 a month plus $50 for a special diet. "I've applied for MAiD essentially...because of abject poverty," she said.

One of her physicians, Dr. Riina Bray, medical director of the Environmental Health Clinic at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, has been looking for better housing saying Denise requires “immediate relocation for her safety.”

Favaro explains how applying for MAiD, in Ontario, was easy.

Denise said she began working on applications for MAiD in the summer of 2021.

A psychiatrist, she said, first deemed her competent to make the decision. A second MAiD provider reviewed her medical history and signed the approval according to Denise. Another physician who offers medically assisted death has now asked her to finalize documents including a power of attorney and funeral arrangements along with a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. She said she’s finishing up this documentation.

Denise has also asked doctors to waive the 90-day waiting period for people like her who are “Track Two” cases, meaning their natural death isn't imminent, hoping for an earlier death.

Dr Bray, Denise's physician, told Favaro that Denise's condition can be fixed. She also said that none of the MAiD assessors contacted her. Favaro quotes Bray:

"Society is failing these patients,"

“My hope is that we can just put a stop to this very easy out that MAiD is providing and start acknowledging that these people need to be helped,"

Favaro also reports how Denise's case is very similar to the case of Sophia, the 51-year-old Ontario woman who died by MAiD in February. Favaro reported:

She (Sophia) received a medically assisted death in February, after fruitless attempts to get an apartment away from smoke and chemicals in her building. Denise said she started the paperwork on her request for MAiD in the summer of 2021, long before Sophia's story went public.

According to Dr Bray who works at the environment health clinic at Women’s College Hospital, which tries to help people with chemical sensitivities:

the clinic is seeing a growing number of referrals for the condition, with a two-year waitlist for a specialist appointment. Canadian statistics suggest that at least 700,000 Canadians suffer from sensitivities to chemicals.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the disability rights community warned that removing the terminal illness requirement and permitting MAiD for people with chronic conditions, as Bill C-7 has done, would lead to people, such as Denise and Sophia, dying by MAiD for treatable chronic conditions.

Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article written by Yuan Yi Zhu, a Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and a researcher based at Nuffield College, Oxford (UK) was published in The Spectator on April 30 titled: Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

Zhu explains that the Supreme court decision struck down Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide and then parliament legalized euthanasia by passing Bill C-14 which required that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable." Zhu explains how Bill C-7 changed Canada's euthanasia law:

It only took five years for the proverbial slope to come into view, when the Canadian parliament enacted Bill C-7, a sweeping euthanasia law which repealed the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ requirement – and the requirement that the condition should be ‘terminal’. Now, as long as someone is suffering from an illness or disability which ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’, they can take advantage of what is now known euphemistically as ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID for short) for free.

The problems with euthanasia started before Bill C-7 was passed, but Bill C-7 made things worse:

Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion. Even before Bill C-7 was enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Zhu then explains how euthanasia is saving the government money.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

Zhu concludes his article by explaining that next year euthanasia will be available for those with mental illness. He writes:

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy.

What I like about this article is that it is written by someone who is looking at Canada from afar. Canadians tend to deny the reality by thinking, it really isn't that bad.