Ontario MAiD Death Review stories. Do you have a (MAiD) death story?

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death?

Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario?
Why has there been no medical license suspensions? 

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The recent Ontario MAiD Death Review that released by the Chief Coroner of Ontario in conjunction with the Review Committee outlines several Ontario euthanasia stories.

According to the Review Committee, these euthanasia stories were not the only stories but they were representative of concerns with the euthanasia deaths in Ontario.

The purpose of this article is to outline the stories in the Ontario MAiD Death Review report and help other people with their concerning euthanasia cases.

Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee report.

Case 1: Complex Medical Condition

Mr. A was a male in his late 40s who experienced suffering and functional decline following three vaccinations for SARS-Cov-2. He received multiple expert consultations, with extensive clinical testing completed without determinate diagnostic results. Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed. He had a significant mental health history, including depression and trauma experiences. While navigating his physical symptoms, Mr. A was admitted to hospital with intrusive thoughts of dying. Psychiatrists presented concerns of an adjustment disorder, depression with possible psychotic symptoms, and illness anxiety/somatic symptom disorder. During a second occurrence of suicidal ideation, Mr. A was involuntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, post-traumatic stress disorder was thought to be significantly contributing to his symptoms. He received inpatient psychiatric treatment and care through a specialist team. He was also diagnosed with cluster B and C personality traits.

The MAiD assessors opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

No pathological findings were found at the time of post-mortem examination. The cause of death following post-mortem examination was provided as post COVID-19 vaccination somatic symptom disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder.

In this case the person who died by euthanasia had no pathological findings that were found at the time of post-mortem examination. In other words he was otherwise healthy. Whether his health issues were related to psychological issues or some other health concern, Mr. A was killed without having a known medical condition.

Case 2: Concurrent Mental Illnesses

Mr. B was a male in his late 40s. He was diagnosed with longstanding severe gastric and duodenal ulcers with unknown etiology. Mr. B concurrently presented with multiple mental illnesses, namely depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type 2. He had chronic suicidal ideations.

A year prior to the provision of MAiD, Mr. B attempted suicide with a descent from a height. He experienced polytrauma and required extensive medical and surgical management and rehabilitation. Psychiatry was involved in the MAiD assessment process. Mr. B was deemed by psychiatry to be capable of participating in the MAiD process, and the suicide attempt was determined to be a reflection of profound existential suffering. A psychiatrist determined that neither psychiatric illness nor suicidal ideations were facilitating the request for MAiD.

Mr. B may be experiencing suicidal ideation and yet psychiatry found him capable of participating in MAiD and determined that his previous suicide attempt and existential suffering were not leading him to ask for death by MAiD. Since a person with psychiatric concerns can die by euthanasia, in Canada, if they have another health condition, this case shows how it is impossible to determine whether the psychiatric condition is driving the request to die, or not.

Case 3: Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder

Mr. C was an older male in his 80s, who experienced chronic back pain (15 years) due to spinal stenosis and post-surgical adhesive arachnoiditis. He was followed by a specialist pain clinic. Mr. C was also diagnosed by a psychiatrist with an adjustment disorder leading up to his request for MAiD. He declined further pharmacological interventions for same. The psychiatrist determined that this approach was in-keeping with an informed decision. Mr. C’s adjustment disorder was mainly influenced by irremediable chronic pain, and less likely to be responsive to pharmacologic intervention.

Mr. C needed support related to his adjustment disorder and he required relief from chronic pain. Some members of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee suggested that a 90-day waiting period was insufficient in this case because Mr. C needed a time to adjust to his condition. Mr. C did not need to be killed.

Case 4: Social Vulnerability

Mr. A was a male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. He received extensive treatment for this illness. It was reported that partly due to the course of his illness, Mr. A did not have an active social network: he could not maintain employment, he found personal relationships difficult to sustain, and he was dependent on family for housing and financial support. As a result, Mr. A lived with reduced social supports. He had declined multiple social support programs and psychosocial services.

Mr. A had a history of mental illness, previous episodes of suicidality, and on-going alcohol and opioid misuse. He lost his driver’s license secondary to his addictions. During a psychiatry assessment, the psychiatrist asked him if he was aware of MAiD and presented information on the option. While Mr. A was believed to have maintained decisional capability, his substance use was not explored in the MAiD assessments, and he was not offered addiction treatments.

During the MAiD process, there was no documented input from Mr. A’s family, nor a statement about why there was no engagement with family. The MAiD provider documented that the family had concerns about his request for MAiD.

The MAiD provider personally transported Mr. A in their vehicle to an external location for the provision of MAiD.

The MAiD Death Review Committee expressed concerns related to Mr. A and his lack of social connections, his family not supporting the death decision and his addiction and mental health problems.

Mr. A was killed without being offered an alternative to live. Even the fact that the MAiD provider gave Mr. A a ride to his death opens the question as to whether Mr. A was killed due to his request or based on the MAiD providers convictions.

Case 5: Housing Vulnerability

Ms. B was a female in her 50s with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS). She had a history of psychiatric hospital care for depression, anxiety, suicidality, and post-traumatic stress disorder, related to childhood trauma.

Ms. B had difficulty securing housing that met her medical needs. After years of attempts to secure appropriate housing, the Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling to allocate funds to renovate her apartment. These renovations did not satisfactorily address her MCSS symptoms. A remaining option presented was to live in a small hypoallergenic space (i.e., a bubble). As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCSS, Ms. B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD.

It is safe to conclude that Ms. B is dead because she was not provided suitable housing. Housing is a serious problem in Ontario but in this case the lack of affordable suitable housing resulted in the death of Ms. B.

Case 6: Disability

Mr. C was a male in his 40s living with quadriplegia following a motor vehicle collision. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to vulnerability in his medical journey (e.g., social isolation). Mr. C received rehabilitation without physical or functional gains. Due to his complex medical conditions, returning home with supports was not feasible.

The MAiD assessors considered his death non-reasonably foreseeable, thereby proceeding with Track 2 safeguards. However, one of the MAiD assessors considered the 90-day assessment period to be a “waiting period” and documented the possibility of “reducing the timeline should his natural death become reasonably foreseeable” (e.g., untreated septicemia).

Mr. C was separated from his family while receiving on-going complex continuing care. He was distressed about perceived limits of maintaining an ongoing relationship with his young children. Mr. C was a member of a racialized and religious community, with associated challenges with acceptance of MAiD.

Mr. C is the prime example on how one's disability can lead to their death by euthanasia. Mr. C needed an adjustment period to come to accept his new life with a disability. It is normal for an able-bodied person to grieve and feel that their life lacks meaning and hope after a serious accident that led to a serious disability.

Further to that Mr. C was living with social isolation since he was now separated from his family. If care-givers provided him the opportunity to re-intergrate into his family/home and/or provided a positive peer support to encourage him to adjust to his disability, then he would likely be alive today.

Mr. C. didn't need death, he needed an opportunity to live.

It is important to restate that the six cases that were outlined in the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee Report were representative of cases, not the only cases. 

These cases were based on six areas of concern: Complex Medical Condition, Concurrent Mental Illnesses, Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder, Social Vulnerability, Housing Vulnerability, Disability.

Some of these themes were present within more than one of the cases, especially concerns around disability, mental health (psychiatric conditions) and social vulnerability.

The greatest question related to these cases is: Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario and/or why has there been no medical license suspensions?

These cases have been discussed after the person died. Clearly there is a problem with the death approval system. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because these acts result in the killing of a person. The current approval system enables two doctors or nurse practitioners to approve a death and carry out the killing. There is no committee or “third-party” to ensure that there is effective oversight before a person is killed. You can’t bring any of the 6 people featured in these case back from the dead.

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death? Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1).