When medical assistance in dying (MAID) became law in 2016, advocates celebrated. People now had the right to ask their doctor to end their lives to avoid suffering and spare loved ones the agony of watching a slow, undignified death. This was argued as the most basic of human rights: the right to control one’s own destiny.
The debate pitted those who believe only God can decide when we die against those who believe people should have the right to control their own destiny. Ultimately, the law permitted physicians to end a patient’s life, as long as rigid criteria were met.
Growing Acceptance and Changing Criteria
As a licensed funeral director and executive director of a not-for-profit funeral home serving the Jewish community in Vancouver, I began to see growing acceptance of MAID. While not in keeping with Jewish and other religious traditions, the question was: “Who are we to judge?”
I remember the first MAID cases I handled. It was confusing and awkward. Families experienced a myriad of emotions, from grief to relief. Having a date circled on the calendar when mom or dad is scheduled to die is distressing.
Over the years, MAID applications increased significantly and were approved more liberally. The criteria changed. Some physicians began to view MAID less as a final, serious consideration and more as standard operating procedure when a person felt they no longer wanted to be around.
Questionable Approvals
As a funeral director, I see the medical death certificates physicians sign when a patient dies. I sometimes question whether the person coming into our care after death by MAID should have been approved.
In one particular case, while the immediate cause of death was stated as MAID (as required), contributing health issues only listed “early onset dementia” and “arthritis.” I was prepared to inform the coroner, as I felt this was surely a violation of the law. I chose not to, on the pleas of the deceased woman’s family, but it has haunted me ever since.
Erosion of Safeguards
One safeguard of MAID that was stated as a bedrock principle was that the person whose life was being ended needed to be of sound mind and subject to a mandatory wait period, to ensure they knew what they were getting into and weren’t making rash decisions.
Last year, National Post reported on a woman whose life was ended by MAID. Because she had dementia, a family member made the initial application. Just before the procedure, the woman was asked if she agreed. She was deemed to have acknowledged after she repeated the question and squeezed the physician’s hand. So with the parroting of a question and a squeeze of the hand, a woman with limited cognitive ability was given a lethal drug and died.
Canadians must pump the brakes on MAID. We should be wary about further liberalizing an already dangerous policy.
