2015 - Carter v Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada found that sections of the Criminal Code of Canada violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”^1(footnote)

2016 – Bill C-14

Parliament adopted changes to Canada’s Criminal Code, which received Royal Assent on June 17, 2016, allowing for medical assisted death in circumstances where people with serious illnesses or disabilities were approaching death.^2(footnote)

2019 - Truchon c. Procureur général du Canada

Québec Superior Court finds that important safeguards in the medical assistance in dying law violate the Charter.^3(footnote) Government of Canada did not appeal, but rather expanded eligibility for medically assisted death.

2021 - Bill C-7 – Disability now enough to receive medically-assisted death

Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received royal assent on March 17, 2021: (Source)

2023 - Bill C-7 expanded MAiD to persons with disabilities who are not near the end of their natural life, and in 2023 will be expanded to those whose underlying condition is a mental health disability.

What persons with disabilities said in their testimonies during Parliamentary hearings about Bill C-7:

Dr. Heidi Janz on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities stated that:

(p)eople with disabilities are at a higher risk of suicide due to systemic and internalized ableism, yet they face substantial barriers when trying to access suicide prevention services. Medical professionals overlook typical sources of stress. Problems arising from relationship breakdowns, depression and isolation are wrongly attributed to disability. The removal of ‘reasonably foreseeable’ natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAiD will result in people with disabilities seeking MAiD as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression. In a truly just and progressive society, suicide prevention measures should be applied equally to all people.^4(footnote)

Taylor Hyatt on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities stated that:

(b)reathing supports would be considered standard treatment for a non-disabled person in my situation, especially somebody in their mid-20s as I was. That's supposed to be the prime of your life. All the doctors seemed to see was a disabled woman alone, sick, tired, and probably tired of living. This is nothing new.^5(footnote)

Dr. Catherine Frazee….:

Universality is the bedrock of our health care commitments. Why, then, does Bill C-7 depart so radically, dropping the threshold for MAID for one social group known to bear the trauma of suicide at catastrophic rates, but not for others who suffer and die before their time? What is it about disability that makes this okay? Why is there such breathless confidence that Bill C-7 will bring no harm to disability communities? […]

Some say that the suffering from disabling conditions falls in the domain of medicine, but the agonizing quest of Sean Tagert teaches us otherwise. Let's not forget that he called the bureaucratic denials of needed care a “death sentence”, just days before his assisted death. Some will fall back on the mantra of choice. They say that not everyone wants to live that way, but not everyone wants to live with the indignities of poverty either. No one wants to live under threat of racial or gendered or colonial violence. No one wants to live hungry, incarcerated, abject or alone.

Madam Chair, will our lawmakers carve out other shortcuts to assisted death for those who do live in such conditions, or will you rise to the defence of human rights? If it is the latter, I respectfully urge that you start with us, for our equality is right now on the line.”^6(footnote)

Jonathan Marchand’s testimony before the Senate:

In 2010, following a severe pneumonia, I ended up in intensive care. … Unable to speak, several doctors pressured me to accept euthanasia, “comfort care” as they called it, to end my life. I never asked for this. …

There are no support services to live outside of hospitals. I had to choose between killing myself or living in a hospital for the rest of my life. I was never offered the choice to continue my life at home with the required assistance. I wasn’t ready to abandon my partner, my family and my friends. I signalled my refusal to be euthanized.

I was prepared to do anything to get out of this medical hell, but just like Jean Truchon, I was denied the home care support that I needed. I complained to the highest instances. I was told that it was a political issue as living in the community with the necessary support is not a right in Canada. After two and a half years in the hospital, I ended up in a long-term care facility.

This place is a medical prison. You no longer have choice and control over your life. Your love life? It’s over. You can’t live with your partner. Your private life? Forget it. A record is kept on your every move. You are now the property of the government. Now it is managers, civil servants, nurses and others who will decide how you will live. You are too independent for their taste? They will break you. You have to submit to their rules. You have to be a good, kind, obedient, grateful little cripple.^7(footnote)

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Gerard Quinn, urged Canada’s Senate to “[l]isten closely to those most directly affected. Their antenna is highly attuned to ableism. When they see it, you should pause and reflect before proceeding.”^8(footnote)