A Lawyer Witnessed Coercive End-of-Life Conversation

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was reading through some articles and came across this one that was written by Lisa Feldstein that was published in the Pulse on June 27, 2025 titled: A Lawyer’s Inside View: Coercive End-of-Life Conversations.

The article explains an experience that Feldstein had while representing a family in a treatment dispute. Feldstein explains:

I attended a family meeting at a healthcare facility that was initiated because a patient had requested palliative care. There were many people in the room; we were all gowned and masked. The healthcare team arrived frazzled and late due to an emergency. I'm not certain they realized I am a lawyer, even though my name had been provided and the patient had consented in writing to my presence...

The patient, while not dying, is seriously ill. They had been asking about removing their ventilator (they don't need it continuously but would slowly die if it were removed). The patient is clinically depressed and clearly struggling. Unfortunately, the depression is hindering their ability to engage in activities that could improve their physical condition.

Feldstein explains that one physician was reasonable and offers treatment with the hope of improvement over a three month period whereas the other physician responded this way:

However, the other physician conducted himself very differently and, in my view, crossed into coercive territory. Here are verbatim quotes from him:

“Are you saying three months now to get us to shut up? Or is this because you see it as a valid pathway forward? If that’s what you’re thinking I’d rather hear about it now... If that’s not the case, it would be important to say that flat out.”

Doesn't want patient to “push it off if you’re not actually keeping it in the back of your mind” that things might get better.

Even after the patient agreed to a three month period to try to improve his condition, the physician was suggesting the patient have a MAiD consult anyway. To my knowledge, the patient had never formally requested MAiD.

This has become a common situation whereby the physician not only informs the patient that MAiD (euthanasia) is an option but also pushes the person towards being killed by euthanasia, even though the patient never requested euthanasia.

Feldstein concludes:

As a lawyer who was present to support a vulnerable family, I could not help but reflect on how far this situation felt from what was intended when Canada changed its laws. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carter was about empowering patients to make autonomous, voluntary choices at the end of life - free from suffering, but equally free from pressure. What I witnessed did not feel like a respectful conversation about palliative care. It felt like a system too ready to nudge someone toward giving up, rather than holding space for hope, support, and recovery. If we are not vigilant, we risk turning a right into an expectation, and losing sight of the compassion and caution that were meant to guide these deeply personal decisions.

Thank you Lisa Feldstein for sharing this story.

Most people are not aware that they may be pressured to accept MAiD when in fact they have no intention to even ask for MAiD. Having a family member or advocate is helpful in this situation.