It is with both relief and sorrow that we announce the passing of AB, the Ontario woman whose court action has helped to clarify Canada’s assisted dying law.
AB died last week, with medical assistance, after living for more than 30 years with an excruciating form of osteoarthritis. She was 77 years old.
A woman of deep faith, she told her loved ones in attendance that she was “going home.” After AB died, her daughter said it was the first time in decades that she had seen her mother in a pain-free state.
Though AB’s identity is protected under a court-ordered publication ban, her courage and tenacity have touched Canadians from coast to coast. Aware of her right to end her life with a doctor’s help, she made her initial request for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in early 2017. Two physicians told her she satisfied the eligibility criteria laid out in Bill C-14, the federal assisted dying law, and a date was set for AB to achieve final relief.
However, confusion surrounding Bill C-14’s eligibility criteria — in particular, the requirement that one’s natural death must be “reasonable foreseeable” — caused the providing physician to develop cold feet. It was a cycle that repeated itself twice in the last months of AB’s life.
Having her choice granted and then taken away on three separate occasions was unacceptable to AB. She believed that neither she nor anyone else should be subjected to the same emotional rollercoaster. With the help of Toronto lawyer Andrew Faith, she made an application to the court to have her eligibility for MAID confirmed once and for all.
On June 19, AB was vindicated. Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell ruled that AB satisfied Bill C-14’s reasonably-foreseeable requirement. In addition, Perell’s ruling took aim at some of the misconceptions surrounding this controversial rule. A person needn’t be terminally ill for her natural death to be “reasonably foreseeable,” nor does one need to be suffering from a fatal medical condition in order to qualify for MAID. When making a determination about a patient’s eligibility, providers of MAID, “need not opine about the specific length of time that the person requesting medical assistance in dying has remaining in his or her lifetime,” Perell noted.
The federal government and the Government of Ontario were respondents in the case. Both opted not to appeal Perell’s ruling.
DWDC CEO Shanaaz Gokool was in court in support of AB on June 19 and called her soon after Justice Perell announced his decision. “She was in giddy disbelief,” said Gokool. “She asked me repeatedly if the ruling meant what she thought it did. And she wanted to know whether other Canadians in her position might benefit from the decision, too.”
AB derived comfort from knowing that her struggle would help other Canadians facing unfair barriers to MAID access. This did not come as a surprise to people who knew her well. As a single mother, she worked hard to support her family and was dogged in ensuring that her children received a good education. A pillar in her community, she organized social gatherings at the long-term care home where she resided during the last years of her life.
Though much of AB’s life was dedicated to attending to others’ needs, her last act was about tending to her own. “I’ve reached a stage in my life where I’ve done all the things I want to do,” she told DWDC in early May. “I’ve produced three children — they’re fantastic young people. I enjoyed being in business and I did a lot of meaningful work over the years. But now I’m ready to go home.”
We are immensely grateful to AB and her family for allowing us to share her story. AB believed strongly in our work to support and advocate for Canadians who are exploring their legal end-of-life options. In fact, she wanted Canadians to know that she accessed Dying With Dignity Canada's Personal Support Program starting in the spring.
Individuals and families who are dealing with a MAID request, or who are grieving the loss of someone who exercised their choice, are encourage to contact DWDC’s Personal Support Program Manager Nino Sekopet at nino@dyingwithdignity.ca or toll-free at 1-844-396-3640. Please note that DWDC does not encourage anyone to end their life, nor do we provide the means to do so.
(Header photo credit: Photographee.eu/Adobe Stock)
Showing 8 reactions
Sign in with
Facebook TwitterWe are proud to live in a free country like Canada yet we are not free to chose the time of our death.
The freedom of life must allow every individual to end his/her life when ever they feels necessary even without any severe illnesses.
If religion or its believer play rolls in law making it means our freedom is under their control and I don’t see any difference between Canada and Iran where the Islamic priests determine for the life and death of humans in the name of religion that they believe in.
Saying that in a free country every body has to be free to decide for end of life without lawyers and court interference.
An individual who is suffering under constant pain and discomfort and most important feeling of being Borden on other people and our health care system without any doubt must have the right to chose end of life and relieve.
MAKES DEATH ‘REASONABLY FORESEEABLE’
When the lawmakers were writing the specific language
of Canada’s right-to-die law,
they probably did not think too deeply about how
“reasonably foreseeable” might be applied.
But they clearly did not want to follow the pattern
of other right-to-die laws,
which often say that the patient must be “terminally ill”.
Many laws require a declaration by a doctor
that the patient is likely to die within the next six months.
The national legislators of Canada carefully avoided
requiring any specific length of time.
And now a judge has affirmed
that Canada’s right-to-die law
is more open and flexible than other laws.
No judicial opinion is mentioned in the law.
So this process does not set a precedent
of requiring each patient to go to court.
Without any process of review or appeal,
two licensed medical providers
(doctors or nurse practitioners)
have the authority to declare
that the death of a particular patient is “reasonably foreseeable”.
This novel expression is discussed more fully
in the following presentation of the criteria
for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark—-freelibrary-3puxk/CAN-CRI.html
Now I do not need to plan to refuse to take any supplemental nourishment when I decide to die, at some appropriate date in the future.
My stated time is to do so, was, when I do not recognize two family members.