M.V. has refused food and fluid for 16 days.
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The father of the Calgary autistic woman, who was scheduled to die by euthanasia on February 1, withdrew his appeal of a court decision that prevented his daughter from dying by euthanasia, because the case is essentially moot.Meghan Grant reported for CBC news that:
A Calgary father fighting through the courts to keep his
27-year-old daughter from accessing medical assistance in dying (MAID)
has abandoned his appeal, 14 days after she stopped eating and drinking.
The
woman, who can only be identified as M.V. because of a publication ban,
was set to receive MAID in February. Her father — W.V. — does not
believe his daughter has any medical conditions that would qualify her
for MAID and wanted the courts to review how she was approved.
M.V.,
whose only publicly known diagnoses are autism and ADHD, has never
disclosed in court the conditions she suffers from which led to her
approval.
At the end of May, M.V. began starving
herself because a judge's order blocks her access to MAID until appeal
arguments — originally set to take place in October — can be heard.
M.V. stopped eating and drinking on May 28. Normally someone dies by dehydration in 10 - 14 days after refusing food and fluids. W.V. dropped the appeal on Day 15 because the court case had become essentially moot. Grant reports:
Last week, after learning of M.V.'s voluntary stoppage of
eating and drinking (VSED), Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jolaine
Antonio expedited the case to be heard on June 24.
But on Tuesday, W.V. filed a discontinuance of appeal.
Although
no reasons were given in the document, a partially redacted letter from
W.V.'s lawyer filed with the court last week alerts the court to the
possibility that the appeal would be discontinued.
"We
have asked counsel for the respondents, M.V. and [Alberta Health
Services] for additional information or clarity on these circumstances
but no information has been forthcoming prior to 3:00 p.m. today," wrote
W.V.'s lawyer Sarah Miller.
In the letter, the lawyer says that a discontinuance would be filed if the question of an injunction becomes moot.
That could suggest that if M.V. continued her current course of action, the appeal would become unnecessary.
Grant reported that the father opposed the euthanasia death of his autistic daughter because:
M.V.'s father believes his daughter is generally healthy,
and his lawyer previously argued in court that any physical symptoms she
presents are a result of psychological conditions.
The daughter's only known diagnoses are autism and ADHD, but those conditions do not qualify her for MAID.
This
case is very important to me (Alex Schadenberg) since I have an autistic son who is a similar age. I believe that MV, who is otherwise healthy, was only approved for
euthanasia because she is autistic. This is clearly a form disability
discrimination.
M.V. was originally scheduled to die by
euthanasia (MAiD) on February 1, but her father obtained a temporary
injunction, on January 30, 2024, preventing her death.
CBC News reported on March 12, 2024 on this case that
the father argued that his daughter did not have a medical condition
that qualifies under the law for death by lethal poison (MAiD) and yet
the daughter had already been approved to be killed.
CBC News reporter, Meghan Grant reported on
March 25, 2024 that Justice Feasby ruled that the 27-year-old daughter
can die by euthanasia despite her father's concerns. Feasby withdrew the
temporary injunction that prevented M.V. from dying by euthanasia
but Feasby maintained a 30 day stay of the injunction, which gave the
father time to appeal the decision.
Justice Feasby ordered an
assessment of the role of Alberta Health Services with relation to the
approval of euthanasia for the autistic daughter.
On April 2, 2024, Kevin Martin reported for the Calgary Herald that the father of the 27-year-old autistic woman appealed the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On
April 8, Justice Anne Kirker ordered a stay on the injunction to
prevent the death of the M.V. until after the appeal is decided. The date
of the appeal was in October.
On
May 30, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) announced that we were
granted intervener standing in the case. EPC submitted it's
application to intervene, with legal arguments, on May 17.
Those
who advised M.V. to stop eating and drinking used her for their
own political and social purposes. I am incredibly saddened by the outcome of this case.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2002.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)