Canadian woman was killed by euthanasia after her spouse requested it for her.

Woman killed by euthanasia wanted palliative care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The story of the Canadian woman, known as Mrs. B, who was killed by euthanasia after her spouse experienced care-giver distress, even though she had requested palliative care, has been reported by several media reports.

To provide greater context I went to the original MDRC committee report of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario titled: Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions. This was the MDRC 2024 - Fourth report.

When examining Same Day or Next Day euthanasia provisions the MDRC report states:

A small proportion (4.8%) of all Track 1 MAiD deaths occurred on the same day or next day of a request for MAiD. In 2023, 65 MAiD provisions (1.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the same day of a request and 154 MAiD provisions (3.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the next day of a request.

Therefore there were 219 same day or next day euthanasia deaths in 2023 in Ontario.

There were several concerning cases outlined in the MDRC report. The particular case concerns Mrs. B. The report states:

Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services).

Summary: Mrs. B had significant health issues and has chosen to receive in-home palliative care support. The case continues:

Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.

Summary: Mrs. B was assessed for MAiD but then asked to withdraw her request for MAiD and once again requested palliative care services. The case continues:

The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care application was offered.

Summary: Mrs. B returned to the emergency department the next morning. Her spouse was experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed as stable and sent home. Mrs. B was then denied in-patient palliative care and given an application for long-term care. The case continues:

On the same day, Mrs. B’s spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service requesting an urgent assessment. A different MAiD assessor from the previous day completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout). The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. An additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete a virtual assessment. Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.

Summary: After Mrs. B was turned down for in-patient palliative care services, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service who referred Mrs. B to a different MAiD assessor who determined that Mrs. B qualified for MAiD and that she could be killed immediately. The MAiD provider denied the previous MAiD assessor an opportunity to talk to Mrs. B based on "urgency". The Provincial MAiD coordination service then arranged for another assessment to be done virtually. Mrs. B was found eligible and was killed that evening.

This case concerns a woman (Mrs. B) who wanted palliative care services, but the services were not immediately available and due to care-giver burnout, her spouse requested MAiD on behalf of Mrs B resulting in a same day killing, even though Mrs. B had expressed, based on her values, that she did not want euthanasia but rather wanted palliative care.

The issues of coercion and being killed without effective consent is present in this death. Mrs. B's spouse requested euthanasia for her even though she was seeking palliative care. Mrs. B had stated that based on her values and beliefs that she didn't want euthanasia.

This case proves that it can be easier to be killed by euthanasia than to receive palliative care in Ontario even when the person indicated that she wanted palliative care and not euthanasia.