A man from Canada is requesting a judge to prevent his 27-year-old daughter from receiving medically-assisted death. He believes she does not possess the capacity to fully agree to the procedure. This case sheds light on the boundaries of familial involvement in someone’s decision to end their life.
A female individual from Alberta, referred to as MV due to a ban on publishing her name, was initially scheduled to pass away on 1 February after receiving authorization from two medical professionals. However, her father, WV, successfully obtained an injunction by claiming that she suffers from an unidentified mental disorder which hinders her ability to give full consent for the procedure.
The laws for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada were created following a 2015 ruling by the supreme court. Initially, only individuals who were terminally ill were allowed to qualify for the procedure.
In 2019, a judge in Quebec decided that it was against the law to limit access to assisted death only to those who are expected to die soon, leading to changes and expansions to the existing laws by federal government. Now, adults can choose to have an assisted death if two doctors confirm that they have a physical condition that cannot be cured and causes immense pain. Currently, people with only chronic mental illness are not allowed to access the program called ‘Maid.’
If patients prefer to make their own decisions without family involvement, Maid assessments can exclude family members. In 2020, an 83-year-old man from Nova Scotia passed away after using Maid, despite his wife’s attempts to prevent his death through legal means.
The individual involved in the Alberta case resides with her parents and argues that her family lacks the legal capacity to contest her right to obtain assisted death.
The lawyer informed the court that the matter was concerned with a safeguarded entitlement to self-determination regarding end-of-life decisions – a subject previously discussed by the highest court in 2015.
According to CBC News, attorney Austin Paladeau stated to the court that “[WV] faces the possibility of losing his daughter. Despite the unfortunate circumstances, this does not give him the authority to prolong her life against her desires.”
Paladeau stated that when formulating the existing regulations, lawmakers opted not to incorporate a monitoring function for judges. Doctors designated as approved assessors are the sole individuals authorized to evaluate if someone meets the requirements for Maid.
In 2021, MV originally requested a Maid. The specific reasons for her application have not been disclosed, but she was first approved by one doctor and then denied by another.
In her second try in 2023, one doctor gave approval for her application while another doctor rejected it. According to court records from WV, a third doctor, who had previously approved her application in 2021, was then consulted to review and ultimately approved it.
“I am of the opinion that M.V. is experiencing mental health problems which have yet to be diagnosed and treated. These issues are the underlying reason for her desire to access Maid. Additionally, I believe her mental health issues may affect her ability to make sound decisions regarding Maid,” WV stated in a court affidavit. He also expressed concern that his daughter’s decision may be subject to outside influence.
WV was accused in court documents of seeking out multiple doctors in order to obtain diagnoses that would enable her to receive assistance from Maid. She was also described as an unreliable witness.
Additionally, WV provided a report released in 2021 from a neurologist at a clinic, affirming that MV’s condition was within normal limits and recommended that she follow up with her primary care physician.
MV has not provided any medical records to the court to clarify the reasons for her approval for a Maid. However, Justice Colin Feasby of the court of king’s bench viewed this as a desire to maintain the confidentiality of her medical records.
According to attorney Sarah Miller, who represents WV, the case brought attention to the lack of a legally mandated appeals or review system in Alberta.
Justice Feasby stated that as a court, she is unable to question the Maid assessors’ judgments. However, she is faced with the fact that the only thorough evaluation of this individual shows that they are deemed normal. The decision was described as “extremely difficult” by Justice Feasby.
Judge Feasby is anticipated to make decisions on both the injunction, which prohibits MV from accessing Maid, and whether a judicial review should be conducted to investigate why two physicians approved the request for Maid.
Source: theguardian.com
