Judge bars woman from euthanasia at last minute

Case raises questions about assisted dying laws

A Canadian judge stopped a woman from receiving medical assistance in dying, or Maid, after physicians in her home province of Alberta declined to approve the request.

The judge granted a last-minute injunction on behalf of the woman’s partner restricting Vancouver physician Ellen Wiebe – or any other medical professional – from causing the death of the Alberta resident over the next 30 days.

The case adds fuel to the contentious debate about Canada’s assisted dying programme even as Quebec moves towards allowing people to make end-of-life decisions years in advance.

The woman, aged 53, sought euthanasia due to akathisia, a movement disorder caused by adjusting psychotropic medication used to manage mental health conditions.

She cited “distress side effects” caused by reducing the dosage of medication for her bipolar disorder. These included “an inner sense of terror all day long, the inability to sleep at night, nightmares, the inability to lie down during the day due to a feeling of falling, the inability to sit or remain still, suicidal thoughts,” the Guardian reported.

Physicians in Alberta believed her condition could improve with further treatment and, therefore, did not grant her request for euthanasia.

She then contacted Dr Wiebe, an advocate of Maid, in Vancouver.

Dr Wiebe, according to the lawsuit, approved the woman for assisted dying “at the end of her first meeting”.

She did not review the woman’s complete medical records or consult her previous doctors, the lawsuit filed by her partner said, adding that this hasty approval could amount to “battery, wrongful death, and possibly a criminal offence, if administered”.

The legal challenge underscores the regulatory complexities in Canada’s euthanasia framework, which allows two tracks, one for terminal illnesses and another for those with chronic, irremediable physical conditions.

Applicants with mental health conditions alone are not eligible for euthanasia until at least 2027. In cases where a patient’s death is not “reasonably foreseeable”, federal law mandates that an independent second doctor must approve the request—an approval that the lawsuit alleges was absent in this case.

Dr Wiebe, a clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, has not commented on the matter. She has previously argued that Canada’s euthanasia laws uphold fundamental human rights, a position that has made her a leading voice in the assisted dying movement.

In his ruling, British Columbia Supreme Court judge Simon Coval expressed sympathy for the Alberta woman’s suffering and called the injunction a “severe intrusion” into her personal and medical autonomy as he recognised that the decision could exacerbate her anguish.

“I can only imagine the pain she has been experiencing and I recognise that this injunction will likely make that worse,” he said while pointing out that there was an “arguable case” about whether the euthanasia criteria were properly applied to the woman.

“As I have said, the evidence suggests her situation appears to be a mental health condition or illness without a link to any physical condition and it may not only be remediable, but remediable relatively quickly.”

The ruling signals an emerging judicial scrutiny of Canada’s assisted dying policy which has faced mounting criticism from ethicists and advocates alike who argue that the option can place undue pressure on vulnerable individuals, particularly those experiencing poverty or social inequality.

Maid remains a divisive issue in Canada. Although data shows the overwhelming majority of cases involve people with terminal illnesses, there is a small but increasing subset of individuals whose requests for Maid reflect severe psychological problems or socioeconomic difficulties rather than strictly medical reasons.

Quebec this week became the first Canadian province to authorise advance requests for Maid, allowing people to make decisions about future end-of-life care while still competent—a move that defies federal law.

This prompted advocates to argue for more robust safeguards while opponents warned that such policies could expand the Maid programme to vulnerable populations who might feel driven to choose euthanasia due to their circumstances.