The Legal Landscape of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: A Comprehensive Analysis
August 26, 2024

The Legal Landscape of  Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: A Comprehensive Analysis

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) has been a subject of intense legal scrutiny and debate in Canada since its legalization in 2016. The legal foundation for MAiD in Canada was established through Bill C-14, which amended the Criminal Code to permit MAiD under specific circumstances. The initial legislation required that:

  1. The person must be eligible for health services funded by a government in Canada.

  2. The person must be at least 18 years old and capable of making decisions about their health.

  3. The person must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

  4. The person must have made a voluntary request for MAiD that was not the result of external pressure.

  5. The person must give informed consent to receive MAiD after having been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2015 SCC 5]:

The groundwork for MAiD legislation was laid by the Supreme Court of Canada in this landmark decision. The Court unanimously struck down the blanket prohibition on physician-assisted dying, finding it violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Key points from the decision:

  • The Court found that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying deprived some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely.

  • The Court emphazised that the choice of physician-assisted dying was fundamentally a matter of personal autonomy and dignity.

Truchon v. Procureur general du Canada [2019 QCCS 3792]

This Quebec Superior Court decision challenged the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion in the original MAiD legislation. Justice Christine Baudouin ruled that this requirement was unconstitutional, as it violated section 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Legal Implications:

  • The decision prompted the federal government to amend the MAiD legislation, resulting in Bill C-7.

  • It expanded access to MAiD for individuals whose death was not reasonably foreseeale, acknowledging that limiting MAiD to those near death was overly restrictive.

Bill C-7 & and its Legal Implications:

Passed in 202, Bill C-7 significantly altered the legal landscape of MAiD in Canada. Key changes include:

  1. Removal of the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion.

  2. Introduction of a two-track system with different safeguards based on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

  3. Allowing advance requests for MAiD by persons who may lose capacity to consent.

  4. Exclusion of mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAiD eligibility (temporarily, with a sunset clause).

Legal Challenges:

  • The expansion of MAiD to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable has raised concerns about Charter compliance, particularly regarding the protection of vulnerable persons.

  • The temporary exclusion of mental illness has been criticized as potentially violating section 15 of the Charter (equality rights).

Ongoing Legal Debates:

The legal landscape of MAiD in Canada continues to evolve, with several key issues under debate:

  1. MAiD for Mental Illness: The proposed expansion to include mental illness as a sole underlying condition has been delayed until March 2024. Legal challenges center on defining and assessing the irremediability of mental illnesses and ensuring informed consent.

  2. MAiD for Mature Minors: Extending MAiD to mature minors raises questions about assessing a minor’s capacity for end-of-life decisions and may require amendments to provincial healthcare consent laws.

  3. Advance Requests: When Bill C-7 allows some advance requests, the full scope remains debated. Legal challenges include determining the validity of requests made before loss of capacity and establishing safeguards against abuse.

These ongoing debates highlight the need to balance individual autonomy with protecting vulnerable populations, ensuring MAiD remains a dynamic area of Canadian law requiring continued judicial interpretation and legislative refinement.

Leave a Reply