Official report of Medical Assistance in Dying cases reveal troubling story of elderly woman who wanted palliative care was euthanized at the request of her husband.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
In my most recent report on Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, I noted that the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership is sharply criticizing Canada’s MAID program, which is now linked to organ donation, with one top official calling it a “strange new horror” and a cautionary example for other countries.
Now, even more disturbing revelations about the program are being made, which underscore the correctness of every concern expressed about this program.
Ontario’s chief coroner has released two new reports from the province’s interdisciplinary MAID Death Review Committee, examining same‑ or next‑day provision of MAID and the use of waivers of final consent. The committee’s mandate was to look beyond individual files to the patterns they reveal.
Several of the cases reveal that the process for some included coercion and rushed decisions. The first case related to this report that caught my eye involved “Mrs. B”:
An elderly woman in Canada was euthanized only hours after telling doctors she wanted to live and receive hospice care instead.
She had become very ill after heart surgery and was being cared for at home by her elderly husband, who doctors noted was experiencing “caregiver… pic.twitter.com/d3pnWUm1q9
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) January 24, 2026
Mrs. B was a woman in her 80s in Ontario who had serious complications after surgery and was being cared for at home by her elderly husband. She initially opted for palliative care and, during a MAID assessment, told an assessor she preferred palliative care because of her personal and religious values and did not want euthanasia at that time.
Her husband was documented as experiencing “caregiver burnout,” and a physician requested inpatient palliative/hospice care, but the hospice request was denied because she did not meet the criteria for end‑of‑life admission.
Once the hospice admission was declined, her husband requested an “urgent” MAiD reassessment, saying he could no longer cope with caring for her at home. This is what happened next:
A different MAiD assessor from the previous day completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout).
The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. Additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete a virtual assessment.
Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.
As Mrs. B was euthanized that night, most committee members believed the time and evaluation taken before Mrs. B’s euthanasia were insufficient, given her circumstances.
Then there is the case of Mr. C, a person with a serious illness whose MAID request and provision occurred very close together. The palliative care involvement was minimal and largely reactive, and the MAID assessor arrived while the patient was being treated with opioids.
On this same day, a MAiD practitioner arrived at the hospital to complete a MAiD eligibility assessment. The MAiD practitioner was advised by the medical care team that Mr. C had an altered cognitive state and likely had lost capacity for healthcare decisions.
Due to a previous expressed request for MAiD, the MAiD practitioner proceeded to vigorously rouse Mr. C, who opened his eyes and mouthed “yes” to the
MAiD practitioner’s inquiry of his request for MAiD. After withholding his opioid analgesia and medications for sedation for 45-minutes, Mr. C was documented to be more alert (observed to have “eyes open”). The MAiD practitioner completed the initial MAiD assessment through a series of short verbal statements (“yes”) and non-verbal (documented ‘head nods and blinking’) confirmatory responses.The MAiD practitioner facilitated a virtual second assessment, where the first MAiD practitioner was present and provided the medical history and illness trajectory. The second MAiD practitioner also found Mr. C eligible for MAiD. The provision of MAiD occurred following confirmation of final consent via “mouthing the word ‘yes’” and nodding his head in [presumed] agreeance”.
This report offers cautionary examples where, had there been better pain and symptom management, thorough mental health treatment, reduced institutional constraints, and more time, the individuals might have chosen life. Furthermore, euthanasia in these situations may been the result of other people’s choices.
But at least the healthcare is “free”.
Imagine believing that CANADA has FREE healthcare in reality after paying significant TAXES for healthcare, high number of Canadians have to travel abroad to actually get care, OR also possibly DIE waiting for care
This is Canada pic.twitter.com/yscPHqIfEa
— Melissa (@MelissaLMRogers) January 13, 2026
