Available in Audio Format:

Two new legal challenges have been launched regarding eligibility for euthanasia in Canada.  One challenge argues that the law discriminates against people with mental illness by making them ineligible for euthanasia. The other claims the law discriminates by allowing euthanasia for persons with disabilities. One lawsuit seeks to expand euthanasia. The other seeks to restrict it. Both are using arguments centered on perceived discrimination.

We’re following these cases closely as we continue striving to bring a biblical perspective on euthanasia to our government and courts.

Legislative History

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down criminal prohibitions on assisted suicide and consensual homicide in Carter v. Canada. In response, Parliament passed Bill C-14 (2016), which legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people nearing natural death.

In 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that the end-of-life requirement was unconstitutional. Rather than appeal the decision, the federal government responded with Bill C-7 (2021), which expanded euthanasia and assisted suicide to people with a chronic illness or disability who are not nearing natural death. Bill C-7 was also supposed to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition, but Parliament twice delayed this. The expansion to mental illness is now scheduled to come into effect in 2027. The legal system has been used as a catalyst for expanding euthanasia in Canada. The same could happen again with these two new legal challenges.

Mental Illness Case

The first court case challenges the mental illness restriction. This challenge was filed by Dying with Dignity Canada, a national pro-euthanasia advocacy organization, along with two persons with mental illness who wish to be euthanized. One is Claire Elyse Brosseau, who has been diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder, experiences disordered eating, has a substance use disorder in remission, and has a significant history of trauma. The other is John Scully, who has been diagnosed with severe chronic PTSD and major depressive disorder. In both cases, their doctors consider their illnesses to be “grievous and irremediable,” that is, serious and incurable, which would make them eligible for euthanasia were it not for the mental illness exclusion.

The Arguments

The applicants note that people with mental illness are allowed to access euthanasia if they also have a serious and incurable physical illness, disease, or disability.  The applicants argue that suffering from mental illness can be just as severe, enduring, and irremediable as suffering caused by physical health conditions. They claim that the mental illness exclusion arbitrarily prolongs the suffering of Canadians who suffer from mental illness but who lack a physical illness or disability.

The applicants argue, first, that the mental illness exclusion violates section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. In particular, their arguments focus on the right to liberty, contending that the decision to be euthanized is of fundamental personal importance and thus a matter of personal dignity. They also argue that the mental illness exclusion violates the security of the person “by imposing prolonged physical and psychological suffering.” The law, they claim, prohibits individuals from ending their suffering when and how they want.

Next, the applicants argue that the mental illness exclusion violates section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees the equal protection and benefit of the law to all. The mental illness exclusion, they argue, creates a distinction between individuals suffering from mental illness (who are ineligible for euthanasia) and those suffering from physical illness, diseases, or disabilities (who are eligible). These distinctions, the applicants claim, exacerbate the disadvantages and stigma of mental illness.

Disability Case

The second case is a challenge of the current law allowing euthanasia for people who are not dying. This case was filed by four not-for-profit organizations: Inclusion Canada, the Indigenous Disability Canada/British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, and the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada. In addition to these organizations, two individuals are named. K.C., first, has both physical and mental disabilities. Since  Bill C-7 became law, K.C.’s experience is that eligibility for euthanasia has caused harm, especially in healthcare settings. The other individual is Kathrin Mentler, who lives with chronic pain and a history of depression and suicidality. In 2023, Mentler went to the hospital following a mental health crisis and was advised about MAiD, even though she did not ask for information about how to die.

The Arguments

The applicants note that all people eligible for euthanasia are persons with disabilities, since a person with a grievous and irremediable condition is, by definition, a person with a disability. However, the original euthanasia law under Bill C-14 made people who were not dying ineligible for euthanasia. This distinction protected persons with disabilities against premature death, and avoided undermining suicide prevention. Allowing euthanasia for people who are not dying, however, inappropriately distinguishes between people with disabilities and those without.

The applicants argue that Bill C-7 violates section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on disability. Since euthanasia is exclusively offered to persons with disabilities, it stigmatizes and devalues the lives of people with disabilities. Euthanasia is presented as a solution to the suffering associated with disability, and the law does not require that patients try treatments or supports. As a result, Bill C-7 may also induce persons with disabilities to end their lives as a response to suffering.

Many people, with or without disabilities, suffer from marginalization, social isolation, poverty, or homelessness. But the consequence of Bill C-7 is that only people with disabilities are offered euthanasia as a solution to suffering. An able-bodied person suffering from poverty or homelessness may not be euthanized. Further, Bill C-7 undermines trust in care providers, as disabled persons fear that a provider will suggest death as a solution to their suffering. Such a suggestion can shape a person’s perceptions of their own value and dignity and make them feel like a burden. Making euthanasia an option also undermines the quality of the care they receive.

The applicants also argue that Bill C-7 violates section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, by increasing the risk that persons with disabilities will die prematurely. People who might not have contemplated suicide may choose euthanasia because it is presented as an accessible and effective solution to suffering. Indeed, it is presented as medical care and supported by their government and so, by extension, their society.

The application states, “A law that allows people with disabilities to access state-funded death in circumstances where they cannot access state-funded supports they need to make their suffering tolerable is grossly disproportionate. There is no deprivation that is more serious and more irrevocable than causing someone who is not otherwise dying to die.”

Moving Forward

Both these cases discuss how the law differentiates between groups of people in determining eligibility for euthanasia. While one argues that it is discriminatory not to allow euthanasia for mental illness, the other argues that it is discriminatory to allow euthanasia for persons with disabilities.

If the Court in either case determines that the law is unconstitutional, the Attorney General would likely appeal. But the government might simply amend the law to align with the lower Court’s decision. If the law is deemed constitutional in either case, the applicants may seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. Both cases could very well end up at the Supreme Court of Canada, years from now. They cannot both succeed.

As Christians, we recognize that these cases are happening because Canada has opened the door to killing as a solution to suffering. We need to continue to show that euthanasia must never be a solution for suffering, whether that suffering is due to mental illness, disability, or terminal illness.  While Canadians can only advocate in the courts as parties or interveners in a particular case, we encourage all Christians to consider how to advocate for life as ordinary citizens.

Whatever the outcome of either case, Parliament will have the opportunity to respond with new laws. So let us continue to remind legislators of the need to care for, not kill, those who are suffering.  As mentioned in a previous article, ARPA Canada’s Care Not Kill campaign calls on Parliament to repeal Bill C-7 and end euthanasia for those who are not dying. This is an important step towards better euthanasia law in Canada. Consider signing a petition, emailing your Member of Parliament, writing to your local newspaper, or putting up a bus ad in your community. Head to carenotkill.ca for more information and to take action.