BC Judge halts euthanasia death scheduled by Dr Weibe.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On October 27, 2024 I reported on the BC judge who granted a 30-day injunction to prevent the euthanasia death of a woman. I was the first one to report on the case but I did not share the information that I had based on a publication ban. I did promise to provide information as soon as it was available.

On October 29, Lisa Steacy reported for CTV news Vancouver that Justice Simon R. Coval signed an injunction on Saturday October 26 which prevented Dr Ellen Wiebe from killing an Alberta woman on Sunday October 27. Wiebe is known to be Canada's most active euthanasia doctor. Steacy writes:

The injunction, signed by Justice Simon R. Coval, is the first of its kind issued in the province and was issued on Saturday, the day before the woman was scheduled to die.

It prevents Dr. Ellen Wiebe or any other doctor from “causing the death” of the 53-year-old woman “by MAID or any other means.” It followed a notice of civil claim alleging Wiebe negligently approved the procedure for a patient who does not legally qualify.

The injunction prevented Wiebe from killing the woman. Steacy explains:

“If the defendants proceed with MAID, the death will constitute a battery of (the patient), wrongful death and, potentially a criminal offence,”

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide a mechanism for challenging a negligent approval but the judge establishes the role of the court by stating:

“It is within the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court to enjoin allegedly criminal conduct, in this case the termination of a patient's life where it appears that legislative criteria has not been met, and/or the protection of a patient from injury,”

Dr. Ellen Wiebe

The woman who was approved for euthanasia by Dr. Wiebe remains anonymous. The woman was refused approval in Alberta but went to British Columbia because Wiebe approved her death. Steacy reports:

“She could not get approval from her own doctors (in her home province), and so started looking online for other doctors who might be open to her request. She eventually found Dr. Ellen Wiebe,” the application says, adding that the woman had several Zoom meetings with the B.C. doctor and outspoken MAID advocate.

“At the end of the first meeting, Dr. Wiebe approved (the woman) for MAID.”

The claim, that was filed by her common law husband, states that the woman does not qualify for euthanasia, not even for a Track 2 approval. Track 2 approvals are based on a person who is not terminally ill but is suffering and living with an irremediable medical condition. Steacy reports:

According to the notice of civil claim, the woman has been diagnosed with “rapidly cycling bipolar 2 disorder.” However, she sought MAID on the basis of “akathisia,” a condition that is associated with changing doses of psychotropic or antipsychotic medication. According to the American Psychiatric Association, it manifests as “extreme restlessness characterized by an inability to sit or stand still and by fidgety movements or jitteriness, as well as a subjective report of inner restlessness.”

In October of 2023, the woman was prescribed a high dose of Quetiapine but soon after sought to reduce the dosage.

“As she was reducing her medication, (she) began describing distressing side-effects. She described having ‘the horrors’ or an inner sense of terror all day long, the inability to sleep at night, nightmares, the inability to lie down during the day due to a feeling of falling, the inability to sit or remain still, suicidal thoughts,” the application for the injunction says.

“At the same time, (she) continued to express her desire to die. She did not want to do it herself, and regularly begged (her partner) to end her life.”

According to the court documents, the woman and her partner – at an emergency consultation with a doctor in their home province 11 days before the medically assisted death was scheduled – were told that the condition is treatable and that the symptoms could resolve within months.

The claim states that the woman is being actively treated by a physician and yet was approved for euthanasia by Dr Wiebe. Steacy continues:

“This case raises serious questions about whether (the woman) in fact qualifies for MAID Track 2. Particularly concerning is that akathisia appears to be a cluster of symptoms connected to the changes in usage of drugs used to treat a psychiatric condition. It is treatable but (the woman) has not followed treatment recommendations.”

The case alleges that Dr Wiebe did not fulfill the requirements of the law. Steacy explains: 

In addition to arguing that the woman was seeking MAID based on a condition that disqualifies her from receiving it, the lawsuit raises a number of concerns about the process by which MAID was approved in this case.

According to the court documents, the woman’s partner allegedly questioned whether akathisia is “irremediable” and questioned Wiebe’s willingness to sign off on the procedure during a Zoom call.

“(The partner) asked Dr. Wiebe if she had ever carried out MAID on someone with akathisia. Dr. Wiebe said that she had not. During the same Zoom session, (the partner) also attempted to describe (the woman) as a person with unresolved mental health problems which were probably not considered during the MAID assessment,” the notice of application says.

“Dr. Wiebe responded by stating that diagnosis does not matter, and that only quality of life mattered, and that this was (the woman’s) right.”

The lawsuit alleges that Wiebe did not directly speak to any of the woman’s doctors, did not request her medical records, and only reviewed partial records provided by the patient via email.

Further to that the case alleges that Wiebe did not consult or have a second independent physician sign off on the euthanasia application. The case alleges that Wiebe arranged for a second doctor to speak to the woman and approve her death by Zoom. The case also claims that there was not an independent witness who signed the euthanasia. Steacy explains:

“The litigation seeks to address potentially serious failings in the application of the MAID regime,” the court documents say, summarizing the arguments.

This case will potentially set precedent related to the approval system for euthanasia in Canada, how a determination is made when the applicant is not terminally ill and establish some possible oversight of the law, which is currently lacking.

As I stated on October 27 - Similar to the WV / MV case in Calgary where a father was granted an injunction in the euthanasia approval of his 27-year-old autistic daughter because he claimed that his daughter didn't have an irremediable medical condition, this case the woman's husband sought an injunction claiming that his wife does not have an irremediable medical condition.

This case goes further because the woman's husband is also challenging the shoddy nature of euthanasia approvals in Canada.