With a background of depression and a few non-life-threatening medical concerns, 61-year-old Alan Nichols was given the go-ahead for assisted suicide.
His reason? Hearing loss.
Alan’s family reported he was not meeting any of the government criteria for Euthanasia. When Nichols was hospitalized, he pleaded with his brother to “bust him out” a month later, the papers were signed, and Nichols’ family reported his case to the authorities. His brother, Gary, argued he was in no mental state to make a conscious decision and a nurse practitioner agreed.
Nichol’s case should not have been considered, given the current Euthanasia requirements. He was not suffering from any severe illness nor taking medication and was not using the cochlear implant that helped him hear.
The request to even offer such “solutions” was improper and unfair.
The Experts’ Opinion
Disability experts are not surprised. Canada’s Euthanasia laws are debatably the most permissible in the world. Unfortunately, this prompts individuals with disabilities to consider this a solution due to insufficient stipend and care. Marie-Claud Landry, the Head of Canada’s Human Rights Commission, states:
“[Euthanasia] cannot be a default for Canada’s failure to fulfill its human rights obligations.”
Many Canadians support Euthanasia and organizations like Dying with Dignity; however, the question lies within its regulation and life quality. Would individuals with disabilities consider such ends if more support was offered?
Such cases, however, do not conclude here. After receiving little governmental aid, 51-year-old Sophia was offered physician-assisted death, her chronic condition became intolerable, and the little financial help granted barely allowed her to live.
In a video obtained by CTV News, Sophia says, “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass.” She spent two years battling to attain better living conditions without success.
Another woman experienced the same, living off disability payments and nearly reaching final approval for assisted suicide. Both women were diagnosed with MCR or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, an illness that triggers nausea, severe headaches, and anaphylactic shock upon contact with common chemicals such as cigarette smoke.
Without any work prospects and little governmental aid, they were easily below Canada’s poverty line.
Chantal Perrot, a physician and Maid provider, states:
“Inadequate housing is not one of the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying. While somebody’s living circumstances may contribute to their suffering, it does not constitute the grievous and irremediable medical condition, which must exist.”
According to Perrot, the struggle was far greater than housing and concerned a chronic condition that would have affected the greater part of their lives.
“We do this work because we believe in people’s right to an assisted death. It’s not always easy to do. But we know that patients need it and value it. We live with the challenge of the work, in part because it is important to alleviate that suffering.”
How Will Euthanasia Laws Change in Canada?
As of March 2023, Canada will join the short list of countries allowing assisted suicide (or MAID) for those who suffer from psychiatric conditions such as bipolar disorder, PTSD, depression, and Schizophrenia.
Canada is not, however, the only country to have enabled this. Both The Netherlands and Belgium legalized Euthanasia for those with severe mental health issues over two decades ago.
Still, in practice, the method of approaching assisted suicide differs exponentially.
- Canada is the only country to enable nurse practitioners to perform the procedure.
- Doctors are not obliged to explore all options and alternatives to Euthanasia. This is a must in both The Netherlands and Belgium.
- Doctors may mention assisted suicide as a “clinical care option” to patients. This is strictly forbidden in Australia and Belgium as it may be misinterpreted.
Landry, alongside three other UN Human Rights experts, expressed concerns about the “discriminatory impact” such laws would have on disabled people. The inconsistency with international human rights standards will encourage worldwide scrutiny.
Director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at UBC, Tim Stainton, defined Canada’s new laws as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”
The underlying issue, however, is how such laws can be regulated and what the state deems “incurable.” Dr. Grainne Neilson, former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, says:
“I think there’s going to be lots of uncertainty about how to apply this in March 2023. My hope is that psychiatrists will move cautiously and carefully to make sure MAID is not being used as something instead of equitable access to good care.”
“The implication of (Canada’s) law is that a life with a disability is automatically less worth living and that in some cases, death is preferable.” Professor of Law and Disability Studies, Theresia Degener, comments.
“In an era where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity,” Landry voices.
