Prohibit MAID if death not foreseeable
Petitioners ask the Government to ban MAID for people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable (prognosis over six months). The government responds that federal MAID law already includes extra safeguards in such cases, like a 90-day assessment and specialist input, and will engage disability communities.
Why we would sign this petition
- It would bar MAID for people not nearing death, protecting disabled and chronically ill people from being offered assisted death where natural death is not imminent.
- It would reduce incentives to use MAID as a substitute for inadequate services, pressing authorities to improve treatments, supports and access to care.
- It affirms that life with disability is not dispensable and counters ableist messages by legally safeguarding those whose deaths are not foreseeable.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- It restricts personal autonomy for people experiencing intolerable suffering whose death is not imminent and who may reasonably seek MAID.
- A strict prohibition could leave some people to endure prolonged suffering when other supports or treatments are unavailable or ineffective.
- The change narrows MAID access but may not address root problems; investing in services and stronger safeguards could be a more balanced alternative.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
Petition to the House of Commons Whereas: Choosing medical assistance in dying (MAID) due to lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice; Allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illness who are not dying devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional, and by extension, dispensable; Offering medical assistance in dying as a "solution" for disability or chronic illness reduces incentives to improve treatment and care for people with these conditions; Canadians do not want an ableist healthcare system where the lives of those with disabilities are seen as not worth living; Many disability advocates in Canada have expressed opposition to allowing MAID for people with disabilities. Therefore we, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to: Protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PATRICIA LATTANZIO Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex and deeply personal matter and there are diverging views across the country. The legal framework for MAID balances different interests and societal values. Provinces and territories manage the delivery of health services, including MAID as part of end-of-life or complex care. The federal government, however, is responsible for the federal legal framework for MAID in the Criminal Code, setting minimum requirements for the lawful provision of MAID in Canada. These requirements include eligibility criteria to determine who can obtain MAID and procedural safeguards to ensure its safe provision. MAID has been the subject of many judicial challenges which shaped the legal framework. As there are additional challenges that arise in the context of MAID for persons whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, the federal legal framework sets out safeguards that must be satisfied in those instances. These safeguards aim to address the risks associated with diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability, that could lead someone not close to death to seek MAID. The safeguards examine whether their suffering results from factors other than the medical condition and whether there are ways of addressing their suffering other than through MAID. For example, a minimum 90-day assessment period seeks to ensure enough time to explore all relevant aspects of the person’s situation, including the availability of treatments or services that could help reduce their suffering like counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care. Additionally, at least one of the two mandatory eligibility assessments must be done by a practitioner with expertise in the condition causing the person’s suffering or in consultation with another practitioner with such expertise, ensuring all treatment options are identified and explored. The patient and practitioners must also agree that the person has seriously considered alternatives to alleviate their suffering. Our government understands that the disability community continues to be concerned about MAID and we are committed to continue working to ensure the disability community’s needs and voices are incorporated into these complex issues. We will also continue with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure barriers facing disabled communities are dismantled. The Disability Inclusion Action Plan is an example of our commitment to achieving full and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities.