• A woman in Ontario, Canada, was euthanized against her will at her husband's request.
• She initially sought euthanasia but later requested palliative care, citing personal and religious beliefs.
• Concerns arise over potential coercion in the euthanasia process.

An artificial intelligence-powered tool created this summary based on the source article. The summary has undergone review and verification by an editor.

A woman in her 80s was euthanized in Ontario, Canada, after telling medical staff she wanted to live and receive hospice care, according to a review board, which said her death was approved and carried out the same day after her husband requested a second assessment.

The woman, identified as Mrs. B and who had recently undergone coronary artery bypass surgery, initially requested euthanasia but later told an assessor she had changed her mind and instead wanted palliative care due to her personal and religious beliefs, according to the Ontario Chief Coroner’s Medical Assistance in Dying Death Review Committee.

However, hospice admission was denied, and her husband requested a second assessment under Canada’s MAiD program. The new assessor deemed her eligible, overriding the concerns of the first assessor, who had warned of coercion, sudden changes in her wishes, and caregiver burnout as possible risks.

The first assessor had sought to meet Mrs. B again for clarification, citing doubts over the urgency and the shift in her stated goals, but the request was refused on the grounds of “clinical circumstances” necessitating same-day euthanasia.

A third assessor was brought in to confirm the decision, and the procedure was carried out.

Rachael Thomas, a Conservative member of Parliament in Canada, recently argued on social media that Mrs. B's "life was taken against her will."

"That’s called murder,” Thomas wrote in a post late last month, marking one of the strongest public condemnations of the incident.

Dr. Ramona Coelho, a member of the review committee, wrote in her review that medical teams should have focused on providing the palliative care that Mrs. B had requested after withdrawing her euthanasia request. She wrote that "[h]ospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation."

"The report also has worrying trends suggesting that local medical cultures — rather than patient choice — could be influencing rushed MAiD," Coelho wrote. "Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable. This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards."

The MAiD Committee emphasized that while urgent cases can warrant same-day procedures, such provisions should be rare and occur only when all legislative criteria are fully met. Most same-day approvals involve terminal cancer patients with palliative care access, not individuals with uncertain or complex diagnoses.

Mrs. B’s case, along with others like it, appeared to deviate from best practices, the committee concluded, warning that a rushed process may overlook diagnostic steps that could reveal non-terminal or treatable conditions.

The report also cautioned that practitioners must confirm consent is voluntary and free from outside pressure. When caregiver burden or family influence may be factors, it said follow-ups should verify that the request aligns with the patient’s values and is not externally directed.

MAiD guidelines require two independent assessments.

In Mrs. B’s case, concerns arose about the independence of these evaluations, especially under pressure to proceed quickly. The report noted that disagreements between assessors should trigger further consultation or delay, not acceleration.

The committee flagged systemic issues contributing to the situation, noting that MAiD services can sometimes be coordinated more quickly than other end-of-life care. It said this disparity can distort patient choices, limiting options and favoring euthanasia where hospice or long-term care might be more appropriate.

A separate concern raised by the committee was the lack of collaboration between MAiD teams and palliative care providers. When not integrated, it said, patients may receive fragmented care that leads to abrupt transitions, confusion, and gaps in pain management.

Some committee members warned that families should never direct the urgency of euthanasia. They urged MAiD teams to engage with families as part of end-of-life discussions but insisted that patient consent must remain the sole determining factor.

Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right to Life U.K., said Mrs. B's case shows the risks of any legal assisted suicide program.

"The tragic case of Mrs B is a stark warning that a legal assisted suicide service can never be perfect, and that, inevitably, tragedies like this will occur," Robinson said in a statement. 

“It is shameful that, when Mrs B needed and requested high-quality palliative care and support, she instead received an early death." 

Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are also debating a bill to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales. Critics of the bill argue that inadequate palliative care already leaves vulnerable people without alternatives and that legalizing euthanasia could further pressure them into choosing death.

Prof. Mumtaz Patel, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said during committee proceedings in the House of Lords that “people are making, sometimes, these choices because of the lack of provision around good palliative care,” and warned that the gap in services is growing wider in disadvantaged areas.

News Source : https://www.christianpost.com/news/woman-euthanized-against-her-will-in-canada-at-husbands-request.html