23-year-old scheduled for euthanasia on September 28 remains alive.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 23-year-old (Kiano) who was scheduled to die by euthanasia on September 28 is alive.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition was instrumental in this first victory to prevent the killing of Kiano.

After speaking with Margaret Marsilla, the mother of Kiano (who was originally scheduled to die by euthanasia on September 22 and then rescheduled for September 28) I published an article titled: Mother wants to stop her 23-year-old son from being killed by euthanasia. (Link).

Margaret had started a Change.org petition. I asked her if we could republish her petition on CitizenGo, a petition platform that we have successfully launched other petition campaigns. Almost 10,000 people signed the CitizenGo petition.

Sign and share the petition to the Ontario Minister of Health (Petition Link)

Margaret told the media that the petition campaign was instrumental in activating people to stop the doctor and MAiD House from killing Kiano.

We originally did not publish Kiano's name because he asked his mother to keep his name private, but since then Kiano has used his name when being interviewed by the media.

But the battle is not over. Margaret wants to prevent her son from being killed by euthanasia but she also wants to set a precedent that wrong approvals for euthanasia can be challenged. 

Since the government is treating euthanasia as medical treatment, then, in Ontario, challenges to euthanasia applications should be able to be reviewed before the Consent and Capacity Board, like other medical treatment disputes.

Linda Slobodian wrote on September 28 in an article for the Western Standard news Margaret as saying:

“We’re going to be fighting the Ontario health system to not allow any other doctors to perform euthanasia on my son.”

“We have to bring this to the Capacity Board, so he’ll be forced to do some testing with regards to his psychological capacity.”

Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board, a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, operates independently from the health ministry under the Health Care Consent Act’s authority. Marsilla’s also considering legal action against MAiD House and the doctor.

“This is going to be a big battle. I’m not going to give up my fight.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told Margaret that we would help her in this process.

You may also want to read the interview with Kiano written by Dorothy Cummings McLean and published by LifeSiteNews on September 29.

Kiano is alive, at least for now. This is great news. Our work with his Margaret has been successful and has made a difference. 

But the battle continues.

Parliamentary Committee Shuts Out Canada's Leading Group That Opposes Broadening Euthanasia

Media Release November 9, 2020

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has for more than 20 years been a leading voice on issues related end of life care, assisted suicide and euthanasia (now known as MAiD). The Coalition has intervened in numerous precedent setting cases, including Carter v. Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada which addressed the question of the decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

While the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Coalition had a meaningful contribution to make to the Court on the questions before it, including the prospect of how such regimes have been implemented in other jurisdiction, the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights has refused to hear from the Coalition on Parliament’s recent efforts to expand euthanasia and assisted suicide through Bill 7.

Similarly, the Parliamentary Committee has expressly refused to hear from one of Canada’s leading human rights and constitutional law experts on the subject of end of life care, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Hugh Scher has served as counsel in Carter v. Canada and numerous other precedent setting cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and Courts of Appeal across the country on these very issues.

Despite his unique expertise on disability-related human rights and on issues related to end of life treatment, euthanasia and assisted suicide as a matter of human rights and constitutional law, the Parliamentary committee has expressly refused to invite or to hear from Mr. Scher as an expert.

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition states: 

During the first hearing, the Committee chose to fast-track the hearings and proposed changes to the law without hearing from leading opposing voices or from experts who may hold a different view.

The previous legisation was passed without defining key terms in the legislation which caused confusion, unprecedented expansion of the law and litigation. The same will occur if Bill C-7 is passed in its current form. But it appears that the Committee is not interested in hearing our voice.

Hugh Scher

Toronto Constitutional Lawyer Hugh Scher states:

It is contrary to the principles of a free and democratic society to hear only from those who agree with you and to deprive those who have expertise on the subject to come before Parliament and to make representations on issues that are critically important to the life and health of all Canadians.

It is also concerning that the government is proposing to expand Canada's euthanasia law, beyond the scope of the Truchon court decision, without first conducting a full review of Canada's law, as legislated by Bill C-14. The previous legislation mandated that a full review of the law begin by June 2020.

The actions taken by Parliament to exclude relevant and expert voices on the question before it under Bill 7 demonstrate how steadfast Parliament is to expand the euthanasia laws of Canada in a manner that puts the public at risk. They don’t wish to hear reasonable opposition or legitimate concerns about their chosen path.

If the government were truly open to a free debate about the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide in this country, they would welcome testimony and evidence from those who have the greatest expertise and experience on the subject, even where their views may differ from the prevailing views of most Parliamentarians.

Parliament’s efforts to shut out different voices reflects a broader antidemocratic trend that should be troubling to all Canadians.

For more information contact:

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - 519-851-1434

Hugh Scher, Toronto Constitutional Lawyer - 416-816-6115

Court of Appeal decides that the court has no role to review euthanasia (MAiD) assessments even when assessments differ.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When Canada's parliament passed Bill C-14 legalizing euthanasia (MAiD) the legislation required two doctors or nurse practitioners to agree that a person qualified for death by lethal injection. As long as two euthanasia assessments approve death, it doesn't matter if several euthanasia assessments determine that a person doesn't qualify under the law.

Katherine's Sorenson believes that her husband of 48 years, who is approved for (MAiD) euthanasia even though he received conflicting assessments, is not dying, has questionable capacity, and is delusional about his medical condition.

Katherine's lawyer, Hugh Scher, sought an injunction to prevent the euthanasia death based on an assessment by a physician, an affidavit from a physician who has known her husband for years, and Katherine's affidavit. These affidavit's state that her husband is not terminally ill, that he has questionable capacity to decide and he has "delusional" beliefs concerning his medical condition.

Today, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decided that:

there is no role for courts in the review of MAiD eligibility assessments. ... Parliament considered, and rejected a role for judges in the pre-approval or review of MAiD eligibility assessments. Parliament made clear that the role rests with approved healthcare assessors.

In other words, if two doctors or nurse practitioners approve a death by lethal injection, that it doesn't matter that other doctors or nurse practitioners assessments disagree that the person qualifies to be killed under the law.

Further to that, if a euthanasia assessment is false, such as, if a MAiD assessor accepting a person's delusional beliefs about their medical condition, that there is no legal way to challenge the assessment, even if the challenger has been married to that person for 48 years.

Katherine Sorenson

Katherine stated:

I am committed to seeing this matter through for the benefit and protection of my husband of 48 years and for the benefit of others across Canada in the public interest, who may lack capacity and who otherwise will remain unprotected by a MAID law that clearly lacks adequate safeguards to protect those who are vulnerable.

Katherine's lawyer Hugh Scher noted that; 

Doctor shopping is a serious concern that must be addressed. Court or tribunal oversight are essential in those rare cases where there are multiple conflicting medical reports over the core issue of capacity which is an essential condition of eligibility for MAID.

Hugh Scher

Hugh Scher also noted that: 

The federal MAID law requires application in accord with provincial laws including those regarding consent and capacity.  Where capacity is at issue provincial consent and capacity laws across Canada call on courts or tribunals to resolve conflicts and disputes over capacity. 

It would be criminal to subject terminal treatment decisions under MAID to less protection than any other treatment decision. 

Toronto lawyer John Campion stated that: 

A more nuanced test for injunctions should be developed for end of life cases as the present tests of serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and balance of convenience are inadequate and/or obviously determined in favour of the applicant (wife in this case) when the result is so final - death. The process should identify the single issue- in this case capacity - and design a process that brings the central concern into timely focus with evidence and argument as part of the balance of convenience... 

Lawyer Kate Naugler noted that: 

The dignity and autonomy of all Canadians is threatened where a person who lacks capacity is permitted to access MAID.

Katherine Sorenson and her legal team have not yet decided their next course of action.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help. EPC is paying the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

Paypal (Link),
Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or
Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

More information on this story.

• Nova Scotia court decides that a man who is not dying and may be delusional can die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Woman goes to court to prevent her husband's assisted death (Link). 
• Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by euthanasia (Link).

Nova Scotia case continues. Katherine is trying to prevent the wrongful euthanasia death of her husband.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Nova Scotia court case concerning a woman who is trying to prevent her husband of 48-years from dying by euthanasia returned to court today.

Katherine's husband was approved for (MAiD) euthanasia even though he received conflicting assessments for MAiD (euthanasia). Katherine says he is not dying and is delusional about his medical condition.

The Canadian Press report on the trial stated:

The woman is appealing last month’s decision by Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Peter Rosinski who rejected her request for a temporary injunction against her husband.

Her lawyers told the three-member panel of judges today that the woman has been given power of attorney by her 83-year-old husband and has an obligation under the law to step in.

They say there were conflicting medical reports about his health condition and about his capacity to seek an assisted death.

Katherine

Katherine's lawyer, Hugh Scher stated that there is no other way to cross examine the medical experts who assessed Katherine's husband.

According to the Canadian Press, the lawyer for Katherine's husband, Philip Romney, argued that:

a proper medical assessment was made under the law and it’s not the duty of the appeal court, or any court, to act as a substitute for the opinion of medical experts.

Romney says the medical assistance in dying process would “fall apart” if the decisions of doctors and nurse practitioners were subject to court review. He said medical professionals would decline to participate in the procedure if their decisions were systematically questioned by the courts.

The Chief Justice stated that the decision would be made quickly.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

Paypal (Link),
Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or
Send cheques to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

More information on this story.

• Nova Scotia court case continues (Link).
• Nova Scotia court decides that a man who is not dying and may be delusional can die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Woman goes to court to prevent her husband's assisted death (Link). 
• Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by euthanasia (Link).

Nova Scotia court case about the husband who was approved for euthanasia, but is not terminal and may be delusional, continues.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Nova Scotia court case concerning a woman who is trying to prevent her husband of 48-years from dying by euthanasia will continue on September 24.

Katherine's husband was approved for (MAiD) euthanasia even after receiving conflicting assessments for MAiD (euthanasia). Katherine says he is not dying and is delusional about his medical condition. Justice Elizabeth Van den Eynden recently lifted a temporary injunction to allow the man to die by euthanasia, even though the judge set the court date for September 24.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition found the decision by Justice Van den Eynden to be untenable.

To schedule a hearing on the merits of the injunction for September 24 and then lift the temporary injunction on September 4, allowing him to die by lethal injection, makes a mockery of justice. 

If the case continues, and if it is decided that the husband lacked effective capacity to decide or did not qualify under the law, but at the same time he had already died by euthanasia is farcical.

Katherine lawyers were denied a formal review of the decision even though her husband can die by euthanasia before September 24. The case questions whether her husband qualifies for MAiD and how to respond to conflicting or false MAiD assessments.

In response to media inquiries Katherine stated:

I have learned so much about the potential for abuse of vulnerable people in Canada through MAID. The MAID programs don’t even follow their own procedures. Doctor shopping is rampant and there is no oversight by court or Tribunal. This must change for the safety of all vulnerable Canadians.

Her Lawyer Hugh Scher noted:

There must be a significant overhaul to MAID in Canada. The limited safeguards put in place by parliament have proven ineffective to prevent against doctor shopping and arbitrary application of the law. If MAID is health care as many argue then it must be subject to the same oversight requirements as other end of life treatments in terms of resolving disputes about capacity, consent and reasonable foreseeability of death.

Absent that we have unleashed a dangerous program of euthanasia on demand that puts the lives of vulnerable people at risk.

Hugh Scher

In an interview by CTV News Avis Favario, Scher suggested that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"What I think this court case speaks to fundamentally is the need to have a dispute resolution process through the courts in those rare cases where there is a fundamental disagreement or conflict between multiple experts that needs to be resolved, because they're coming to completely alternate positions about the question of whether the person meets the criteria or not,"

The decision as to whether Katherine will seek to appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada cannot be determined at this time.

The question that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition seeks to clarify that when there are conflicting or a false MAiD assessment, is there an avenue to challenge the assessment, especially since this is a life and death decision.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

Paypal (Link),
Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or
Send cheques to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

More information on this case.

• Nova Scotia court decides that a man who is not dying and may be delusional can die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Woman goes to court to prevent her husband's assisted death (Link). 
• Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by euthanasia (Link).

Nova Scotia court decides that a man who may not be dying and may be delusional can die by MAiD (euthanasia).

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Update: Katherine's lawyer requested a judicial review to prevent her husband's death until after the Sept 24 court case. On Sept 10 we learned that the review was dismissed. It is crazy that the court is willing to hear the case on Sept 24 but Katherine's husband could die by lethal injection before the case, even the the court may decide that he doesn't qualify.

Taryn Grant reporting for CBC News Nova Scotia that a man who has received conflicting assessments for MAiD (euthanasia) and whose wife of 48 years says is delusional about his medical condition, can go ahead and die by euthanasia. Grant reported:

A Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge has upheld a lower court decision that effectively allows a man to go ahead with a medically assisted death, in spite of his wife's efforts to stop him.

The 83-year-old man from Bridgewater, N.S., was assessed by physicians and approved for medical assistance in dying (MAID) earlier this year, but his wife, Katherine, 82, filed for an injunction with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, forcing him to cancel his plans.

CBC News is identifying the couple only by the woman's first name to protect their privacy and his ability to access health care. His wife has threatened to sue health-care providers who help her husband access a medically assisted death.

While the husband says he's suffering and near the end of his life because of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), his wife says his wish to die is not based on physical illness, but anxiety and mental delusions.

The couple have known each other for more than 60 years and have been married for 48.

Hugh Scher

Hugh Scher, the lawyer for Katherine sent out the following comment:

The decision calls into serious question the arbitrary application of the criminal law in a way that puts vulnerable people at risk.

In this case there are multiple medical opinions questioning the husband's capacity while others say he has capacity. Similarly multiple reports state that his death is not reasonably foreseeable. Others say his death is reasonably foreseeable.

The notion that a court should be precluded from resolving such a fundamental conflict about capacity and that the legal requirements of the criminal code are met is a glaring violation of the rule of law in Canada that puts vulnerable people at risk of death.

The notion that individuals should be free to see 10 doctors who find they lack capacity, but then find 2 more that say they don’t to justify an assisted death is troubling and renders the safeguards and protections of the criminal law completely meaningless.

Katherine calls on Parliament, the Nova Scotia Legislature and the courts to fix an arbitrary and broken legal process that permits the intentional killing by euthanasia of those who lack capacity and who don’t meet the most basic requirements of the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada made clear that legalization of euthanasia in Canada depended completely on parliament’s ability to implement reasonable safeguards to protect the most vulnerable of Canadians.

Today’s decision by a single judge of a court of appeal on a procedural matter demonstrates how woefully inadequate the present regime and procedures are to protect vulnerable people lacking capacity from being put to death in Canada.

Katherine

Grant reported that the case might continue:

The case could still go to a formal appeal hearing and is scheduled to do so on Sept. 24.

Katherine's lawyers noted last week that should her husband go ahead with the MAID procedure before then, it would render the appeal moot. This was one of their arguments for an extension of the interim injunction.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition finds this decision to be untenable.

To schedule a hearing on the merits of the injunction for September 24 and then lift the temporary injunction on September 4, allowing him to die by lethal injection, makes a mockery of justice. 

If the case continues, and if it is decided that the husband lacked effective capacity to decide or did not qualify under the law, but at the same time he had already died by euthanasia is farcical.

Katherine lawyers may ask for a formal review of the decision, but her husband might be dead before the review can be considered.

This is a clear example of justice being denied. 

Katherine could not have carried out the legal proceedings and or file an appeal without the support of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. She loves her husband and she launched the legal action to prevent the wrongful death of her husband, but she could not do so without help.

 
EPC agreed to pay the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

• Paypal (Link),
• Call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 to donate by credit card, 
• Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

We will provide more information, but based on privacy, we are providing as much information, at this time, as possible.

Thank you for considering EPC in this precedent setting case.

Nova Scotia woman will return to court on September 24 to prevent the euthanasia death of her husband.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nova Scotia Justice Van den Eynden heard the request for an injunction to prevent the euthanasia (MAiD) death of a Nova Scotia man today.

Van den Eynden set September 24 as the date for an appeal hearing on an injunction but the judge has not yet decided if the temporary injunction to prevent the assisted death will continue.

The Canadian Press reported that:

Justice Elizabeth Van den Eynden reserved her decision on the request to issue an injunction against a lower court ruling that allowed the 83-year-old man's medically assisted death to proceed.

The lawyers for the 82-year-old woman argued that the stay of the lower court decision is needed because they didn't get a chance to cross examine medical experts. 

The lawyers contend those experts offered conflicting opinions regarding whether the man should have been granted permission to die under the federal law. 

According to court documents, the man says he is near the end of his life due to advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but his wife maintains his wish to die is based on anxiety and delusions.

In an interview with CTV News Avis Favario, Scher suggested that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"What I think this court case speaks to fundamentally is the need to have a dispute resolution process through the courts in those rare cases where there is a fundamental disagreement or conflict between multiple experts that needs to be resolved, because they're coming to completely alternate positions about the question of whether the person meets the criteria or not,"

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

• Paypal (Link), 
• Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or 
• Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

Katherine could not have carried out the legal proceedings or filed an appeal without the financial support of the EPC. She stated that she loved her husband and that she wanted to launch a legal action to prevent her husband's wrongful death. Thank you for helping us stop a wrongful death.

Nova Scotia woman returns to court to prevent her husband's euthanasia death.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Good news: 
Justice Van den Eynden set September 24 as the date for an appeal hearing on a permanent injunction.

A Nova Scotia court heard, today, the appeal of a lower court decision in a dispute over the assisted death (euthanasia) of an 83 year-old man with chronic COPD.

On August 14 I published the article EPC needs your help to prevent a euthanasia death where I explained that EPC is financing this precedent setting court case for a woman who is trying to prevent the euthanasia death of her husband.

The request for an injunction to prevent the euthanasia was based on an assessment by a physician, an affidavit from a physician, who has known the husband for many years, and Katherine's affidavit. These affidavit's agree that her husband is not terminally ill and that he has "delusional" beliefs concerning his medical condition. There were three separate assessments for assisted death stating that her husband's natural death was not reasonably forseeable or that he has lost the capacity to decide.

Katherine

Yesterday, Taryn Grant and Elizabeth Chu reported for CBC News Nova Scotia that:

Their marriage of 48 years splintered over a dispute about his wish to die with the help of a physician. The case is set to return to court Wednesday afternoon.

At the end of July, Katherine, 83, went to Nova Scotia Supreme Court to stop her husband, 82, from going ahead with the procedure that would end his life. Her request for an injunction has yet to receive a full hearing, but by filing with the courts she forced her husband to cancel his planned death on Aug. 3.

Grant and Chu reported the issue to be decided in court:

While he says he's suffering and near the end of his life because of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), she says his wish to die is not based on physical illness, but anxiety and mental delusions.

Part of the legal argument submitted by Hugh Scher, the lawyer for Katherine, stated:

 X (husband) has made three separate requests for MAiD. X changed his mind on the first request after two of the three assessors found that he either did not have capacity to decide to die and/or that his death was not reasonably foreseeable.

Medical Assessors Bachman, du Toit and Giffin agree that X’s conditions do not meet the criteria for reasonably foreseeable death as required by law. Dr. Bachman in particular is concerned that the root cause of X’s desire to die lies in his long-standing hypochondriasis coupled with a profound and irrational fear of future suffering at the hands of relatively benign disease processes. This opinion is buttressed by the findings of Dr. du Toit about X’s disordered thought processes and depression and by NP Giffin who found that he lacks capacity due to dementia and that he is not likely to die in the foreseeable future.

Dr. Bachman stated that X’s death was not reasonably foreseeable and that his request for MAiD was based on a delusional misunderstanding of his true medical condition.

Hugh Scher

In an interview by CTV News Avis Favario, Scher suggested that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"What I think this court case speaks to fundamentally is the need to have a dispute resolution process through the courts in those rare cases where there is a fundamental disagreement or conflict between multiple experts that needs to be resolved, because they're coming to completely alternate positions about the question of whether the person meets the criteria or not,"

Katherine could not have carried out the legal proceedings and file an appeal without the financial support of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. She stated that she loved her husband and that she wanted to launch a legal action to prevent her husband's wrongful death.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by: 

• Paypal (Link), 
• Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or 
• Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8. 

Based on privacy, we will provide more information, when it is possible.

Woman goes to court to stop husband from assisted death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Avis Favaro, the Medical Correspondent with CTV news, reported on the case of a woman who is trying to prevent the euthanasia death of her husband. Favaro reports:

For the first time since assisted death was legalized in Canada in 2016, a judge has ordered that a request for medical help in dying be put on hold.

(Link to the CTV video report) 

A Nova Scotia man wants to die because of a lung disease that he says has left him near the end of his life. Katherine, his wife of 48 years, is fighting that wish in the courts, calling her husband a hypochondriac who is not mentally capable of making the decision to end his life. 

The 83-year-old man has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which he was diagnosed with in 2003. He says he was given three years to live at that time. He also suffered a series of small strokes decades ago and was diagnosed with dementia in 2019.

On August 14 I published the article EPC needs your help to prevent a euthanasia death where I explained that EPC is financing a precedent setting court case of a woman who is attempting to prevent the euthanasia death of her husband.

Favaro explains why the case was launched:

Katherine says her husband first applied for medically-assisted death in April and was turned down, because some assessors felt he did not have the mental capacity to make that decision or that his death was not imminent. 

Katherine says the initial rejection came as a relief to her. Although she knew her husband was talking about ending his life, she felt he was operating under anxiety and delusions. 

In July a new and different group of assessors approved the man for assisted death – setting the date for August 3, which prompted Katherine to contact a lawyer and get an injunction to put her husband's death on hold. 

The issue is now before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. A judge set aside the injunction last week, clearing the way for the man to end his life. Katherine is appealing this decision, arguing that more psychiatric tests should be ordered before her husband is found to have a sound enough mind to request assisted death.

Hugh Scher

Favaro interviewed Hugh Scher, Katherine's lawyer, who stated:

"There's real question, based on the very conflicting medical evidence within a matter of weeks from different practitioners … as to whether or not this person truly does meet the criteria or not," 

Seven different medical assessors offered differing opinions about the man’s mental and physical state between April and July. Some found him suffering from depression and cognitive decline. Others deemed him as mentally competent. 

"I think to put somebody effectively to death … when we don't have that answer, and where the request can be made truly based on a delusion, is simply a complete violation of the rule of law in this country. I don't think it's what the Supreme Court of Canada or Parliament had in mind when it decriminalized euthanasia and ultimately required that safeguards be put in place to protect those who are vulnerable from the risks of serious abuse."

The next hearing in this precedent-setting case is August 26. Scher suggests that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"What I think this court case speaks to fundamentally is the need to have a dispute resolution process through the courts in those rare cases where there is a fundamental disagreement or conflict between multiple experts that needs to be resolved, because they're coming to completely alternate positions about the question of whether the person meets the criteria or not,"

Alan Nichols (left) with his brother.

Favaro referred to a similar situation last year in British Columbia, when Alan Nichols was found fit to request medically-assisted death despite his family arguing that he was depressed and unable to properly give consent.

Favaro asked the Helen Long from the euthanasia lobby group Dying with Dignity who stated that:

partners and other relatives do not have final say in end-of-life decisions.

Favaro also spoke to University of Toronto ethicist, Trudo Lemmens who said that this case raises questions about the safeguards in the MAiD law. He continued:

a person who “may suffer from depression, and who has an application for MAID refused for that reason by medical experts, can shop around and find more lenient physicians to get MAID.” 

“It would be an occasion for the Supreme Court to tighten the criteria and to confirm that there should be appropriate limits on the practice,”

Katherine could not have carried out the legal proceedings or filed an appeal without the financial support of the EPC. She stated that she loved her husband and that she wanted to launch a legal action to prevent her husband's wrongful death, but she could not do so without help.

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition by:

• Paypal (Link),
• Call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 to donate by credit card, 
• Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

EPC needs your donation in this precedent setting case.

Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by (MAiD) euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Nova Scotia media has reported on the case of the woman who is trying to prevent the euthanasia death of her husband of 48 years.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help to pay the legal expenses in this precedent setting case. (Link).

A few weeks ago, EPC received a call from a woman who was upset that her husband of 48 years had been approved for MAiD (euthanasia), even though he was not seriously ill or dying. Her husband has a chronic condition (COPD) and a few other health concerns that are not uncommon for an older man. She is also concerned that her husband claims to have other health issues, but in fact there is no proof that he has these conditions.

Taryn Grant reporting for CBC news Nova Scotia wrote:

A Nova Scotia woman has gone to court to intervene in her husband's plans to die. 

While he says he's suffering and near the end of his life because of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), she says his wish to die is not based on physical illness, but anxiety and mental delusions. 

The man was approved and scheduled for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in July, but his wife applied for a permanent injunction from Nova Scotia Supreme Court, forcing him to pause his plans. She also applied for an interlocutory injunction, which would bar him from a medically assisted death until the final ruling on a permanent injunction.

The injunction was denied last Friday.

Hugh Scher, a lawyer representing the woman, told CBC he's already filed an appeal, which is to be heard in the high court next week (August 26). The man's plans to die will be forestalled at least until the appeal proceedings are complete. 

There is no publication ban tied to the case, but (Justice) Rosinski does not name the couple or give full names of the medical professionals involved in the case. 

CBC is also not naming those involved in the case at this time.

Grant reports on the conflicting medical and expert reports:

The man in this case was assessed by two nurse practitioners, a psychiatrist, a respirologist and three physicians between April and July to consider his request for MAID. 

Rosinski considered reports from those seven medical professionals, as well as an affidavit — submitted by the woman — from a person who diagnosed her husband with hypochondria. 

That person graduated from Dalhousie University's medical school in 1993, but he is no longer a licensed physician, and so Rosinski said he gave his affidavit "minimal weight" compared to the opinions and observations of licensed doctors. 

While none of the licensed medical professionals cited in the case suggested hypochondria, they did bring up mental illness including depression, anxiety and  dementia. 

Some of them said that despite signs of those conditions, he was still perfectly capable of consenting, while others said he should not be allowed to make the decision to die. 

The man's physical condition was similarly disagreed upon, with some saying his lung disease was relatively stable and others saying they would not be surprised if he were to die within the next month.
But the three physicians who provided the man's final assessments agreed that he was fit to decide his fate, and that he he was frail and ill enough to qualify for MAID. 

Scher said the conflicting reports show the need for a fulsome judicial review of the man's request to die. 

Rosinski noted that this hearing did not see all the evidence in the case "in a full and robust fashion," because it was not the final stage of hearing. But, he said, the evidence he did see didn't meet the threshold for an interlocutory injunction. 

While it's a serious matter that could cause irreparable harm, Rosinski wrote, the balance of harm weighed more heavily on the man, should the injunction be granted, than it would on his wife if it were not.

Grant reports that a full-hearing of the case will likely occur in the Spring of 2021.

Rosinski said the full hearing hadn't been scheduled and an early and optimistic start date would be late fall, likely to carry into spring 2021. 

Rosinski said the case may be the first of its kind disputed in Nova Scotia, Scher said it could set an important precedent for judicial oversight in MAID.

EPC needs your financial help to pay for the costs in this precedent setting case.

This woman could not have launched the legal proceedings and file an appeal without the financial support of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. She loves her husband and she launched the legal action to prevent her husband's wrongful death.

EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

• Paypal (Link),
• Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, 
• Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, 
• Box 25033, London Ontario Canada N6C 6A8

Thank you for considering EPC in this precedent setting case.